measuring food safety culture in food manufacturing

Measuring Food Safety Culture in Food Manufacturing

by

Lone Jespersen

A Thesis

presented to

The University of Guelph

In partial fulfilment of requirements

for the degree of

Master of Science

in

Food Science

Guelph, Ontario, Canada

© Lone Jespersen, August, 2014

ABSTRACT

MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING

Lone Jespersen Advisor:

University of Guelph, 2014 Professor M. Griffiths

This thesis is an investigation of. This body of work introduces five capability areas

that food manufacturers should be aware of and willing to be measured against in order to

understand strengths and weaknesses in their food safety culture. The capability areas are based

on theories of organizational culture, food science, and social cognitive science. The research

suggests measures to quantify, evaluate, and predict performance within each capability area

using a food safety maturity scale. The capability areas and maturity measures were tested in a

Canadian food manufacturing company with input to content and interpretation of results from

leading food safety practitioners in the U.S., Canada, and UK. To measure the strength of the

food safety culture in the test company two measurements were taken: strength against

performance standards and strength against a behaviour-based maturity model. The test showed

consistency between the two measures for eight individual plants.

iii

Acknowledgement

A very special thank you to thesis supervisor Dr. Mansel Griffiths, co-advisor Dr. Tanya

Maclaurin and advisory committee Dr. Ben Chapman, and Dr. Carol Wallace. Also, thanks to

my Industry Expert Panel who have advised on the content and practical aspects of the measures,

Dr. John Butts, Raul Fajardo, Martha Gonzalez, Holly Mockus, Sara Mortimore, Dr. Payton

Pruett, and John Weisgerber. Thank you to Deirdre Conway for her help and guidance in

behaviour definitions

iv

Contents

Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................... iii

Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

Organizational culture; people and groups ..................................................................... 1

Food safety culture at work ............................................................................................. 2

Food manufacturing ........................................................................................................ 3

Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................... 6

Chapter 1 Literature Review ............................................................................................... 7

Scope and search areas of the literature review. ................................................................................... 8

Theoretical framework and culture dimensions. ................................................................................... 9

Applying organizational culture dimensions to characterize food safety culture. .............................. 11

Measuring and evaluating food safety characteristics. ....................................................................... 16

Validate measures and evaluations of food safety characteristics. ..................................................... 26

Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................... 27

Chapter 2 Assessment of applied performance standards in meat processing .................. 30

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 30

Method .......................................................................................................................... 30

Audit reports ....................................................................................................................................... 31


v

Food safety scorecard.......................................................................................................................... 33

Performance minutes .......................................................................................................................... 36

Results ........................................................................................................................... 38

Audit reports. ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Food safety scorecard.......................................................................................................................... 40

Performance minutes........................................................................................................................... 42

Coverage of cultural dimensions in performance standard documentation ........................................ 44

Plant scoring ........................................................................................................................................ 46

Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 49

Chapter 3 Food Safety Maturity Model ............................................................................ 52

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 52

Theories and perspectives ................................................................................................................... 52

Cultural dimensions ............................................................................................................................ 53

Method .......................................................................................................................... 53

Capability areas ................................................................................................................................... 53

The pinpointed behaviours and the behaviour-based scale ................................................................. 56

Results ........................................................................................................................... 60

The food Safety maturity model. ........................................................................................................ 60

Pinpointed behaviours. ........................................................................................................................ 66

Overall company behaviour-based maturity. ...................................................................................... 71

Plant behaviour-based maturity. ......................................................................................................... 73

Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 77


vi

Chapter 4 Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................. 83

References ..................................................................................................................... 86

Appendix A: Analysis of quantity, methods and sectors. ............................................. 92

Appendix B: Plant Data ................................................................................................ 95

Appendix C: Biographies of Industry expert panelists ................................................. 97

Dr. John Butts, Ph.D. Food Safety By Design LLC and Vice President – Research, Land O’ Frost,

Inc. ...................................................................................................................................................... 97

Martha Gonzarlez, Director Global Quality Systems, McCain Foods Limited ................................ 108

Holly Mockus, Product Manager, Alchemy Systems ....................................................................... 110

Dr. W. Payton Pruett, Jr., Vice President of Corporate Food Technology aand Regulatory

Compliance, The Kroger Co. ............................................................................................................ 112

Sara Mortimore, VP, Product Safety, Quality & Regulatory Affairs, Land O’Lakes, Inc. .............. 113

John Weisgerber, VP Quality and Food Safety, Ed Miniat, LLC ..................................................... 114

Appendix D: Pinpointed behaviours ........................................................................... 116

Appendix E: Behaviour-based Maturity Scale ........................................................... 138

Appendix F: Plant Maturity Models ........................................................................... 150

Plant 1. .............................................................................................................................................. 151

Plant 2. .............................................................................................................................................. 153

Plant 3. .............................................................................................................................................. 154

Plant 4. .............................................................................................................................................. 155

Plant 5. .............................................................................................................................................. 155


vii

Plant 6. .............................................................................................................................................. 157

Plant 7. .............................................................................................................................................. 158

Plant 8. .............................................................................................................................................. 159

Appendix G: Glossary................................................................................................. 160

1

Introduction

The concept of food safety culture has received increased attention in recent years from

both academics and practitioners. Frank Yiannas thrust the concept to the forefront in 2009, with

the publication “Food Safety Culture: Creating a Behavior-Based Food Safety Management

System” (Yiannas, 2009). This book provides an overview of food safety culture and presents

measures and tactics to change food safety culture in food service establishments. Chris Griffith,

a renowned researcher in food safety culture, published a series of papers in which he discusses

food safety culture based on learnings from other disciplines, such as organizational culture and

occupational health and safety (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010b). Griffith et al. suggests that

dimensions of food safety culture are similar to those found in these other disciplines so that

knowledge gained from studying other organizational cultures can be applied to food safety

culture. They go on to define food safety culture and proposes components to consider when

assessing the effectiveness of food safety culture but leaves out the significance of the work

group. Formation of organizational culture, including food safety culture, takes place in groups

of individuals (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010b). As such, without a group there is no culture

(Schein, 2010). The working group can be formed as an unstructured gathering of individuals or

dictated by organizational structures where the group leader typically is responsible for its

formation. Culture can be thought of as being for the group, what defense mechanisms are for the

individual (Hirschhorn, 1990).

Organizational culture; people and groups

In his work Schein (2009) defines organizational culture as:


2

A pattern of shared assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems.

The group has found these assumptions to work well enough to be considered valid and are

therefore taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to

these problems (Schein, 2010).

Schein’s definition highlights the role of the group within organizational culture. In

particular how the group teaches beliefs to new members as how things are done “around here”

This phenomenon was also observed in research conducted by Ball, Wilcock, and Aung (2009b)

who found that work groups have a significant impact on food handlers’ intent to perform

adesired food safety behaviour.

Food safety culture at work

Some advocates speak of food safety culture as a combination of “people + science”

(Hanacek, 2010). Science is, in this context, the protocols applied to identify and control food

hazards or risks, such as an environmental monitoring program for Listeria or a raw material

segregation policy. Integration of science and thinking from three separate disciplines;

organizational culture, food science and social cognitive science is required to form and maintain

an effective food safety culture. As such, this interdisciplinary approach integrates protocols

from each discipline in a way that people and groups know, allow them to recognize the

organization’s commitment to food safety and understand their individual and collective roles in

executing food safety tasks; they know how to and they want to execute food safety tasks

correctly (Powell, Jacob, & Chapman, 2011). For example, a sanitation group is provided with

the knowledge, skills, and abilities (also referred to as competencies) needed to control Listeria


3

in a food manufacturing facility. The group knows the protocol for Listeria control and was

trained on sanitation-specific tasks to control Listeria. The sanitation group’s working

environment is designed to encourage desired behaviours through supervisor feedback and group

meetings and the work group knows how to consistently perform these behaviours, such as

swabbing the conveyer scraper to test for the presence of Listeria after sanitation is completed.

As illustrated by this example, to effectively control Listeria, the sanitation working group must

work in an organizational culture that sets clear expectations and visibly shows support for a job

well-done (organizational culture); the sanitation working group must understand the basic

science of Listeria growth and survival (food science). The individual member of the sanitation

crew must know both the “how” and the “why” and foster an attitude and social norm to

guarantee a job well done to eliminate Listeria. This scenario illustrates the interdisciplinary

requirements through a practical, everyday example.

Food manufacturing

Food manufacturers are organizations that design, produce and distribute food for sale

through retailers and/or food service establishments. It is estimated that 82% of all people

employed in the North American food industry are in food service, 11.7% in food manufacturing,

and 6.3% in pre-harvesting1. This employee distribution between the two sectors, food service

and manufacturing, is somewhat mirrored in the literature on food safety culture. With 42% of

literature, found specific to food service and 19% to manufacturing there could be a perception

1 U.S. Census, 2010 and Canadian Industry Statistics, 2011


4

that food manufacturers are not in-tune with the concept (Appendix A). There is however,

evidence of food manufacturers’ awareness of and actions on food safety culture and

publications have appeared in which manufacturers write openly about their solutions to food

safety culture challenges (Hanacek, 2010; Jespersen & Huffman, 2014; Seward, 2012). Food

manufacturers are also supported through providers of services in the food industry who have

proposed methods for task observations and behaviour measures (e.g., Alchemy Systems and

NSF). Regulators are also taking action in developing tools for inspectorates to assess and

provide feedback to food manufactures –and handlers on food safety culture (e.g, Food

Standards Agency).

Two studies have been completed in food manufacturing plants and both studies identify

food safety culture as an interdisciplinary challenge that can be resolved by applying tools from

cognitive social sciences to provide further knowledge (Hinsz, Nickell, & Park, 2007; Wilcock,

Ball, & Fajumo, 2011).

Researchers and industry often express a belief that food safety culture is comprised more

of individual initiatives or protocols than interdisciplinary practices. Authors have published

under the thematic title of food safety culture when, in fact, the publications describe well-

defined and executed studies on, for example, training effectiveness and impact of

communication strategies (Robinson & Heidolph, 2009). Whereas, training and communication

are both integral components in the development and maintenance of a food safety culture, they

do not provide a comprehensive view of food safety culture.


5

Therefore, to inform the discussion of food safety culture in food manufacturing it is

important to understand what culture is and what it is not. It is also important to highlight

concepts often thought to be related to food safety culture but cannot be considered so when

applying the definitions given earlier. Firstly, the food manufacturing climate needs to be

considered. Social scientists define climate differently from culture and the two are not

interchangeable. Climate is based on the individual’s perception of the policies, procedures and

practices of food safety (Nickell & Hinsz, 2011a) and stands in contrast to culture, which deals

with the group’s external adaptation and internal integration. In relation to its external

environment the organization has to build consensus around its core-mission, function, specific

goals, means for meeting these goals, and remedial or repair strategies. In relation to its internal

systems the organization has to build consensus on criteria applied to select a common language,

define group boundaries, group composition, allocation of power, status and rewards. Secondly,

some believe that culture is solely about behaviour change and forget the external adaptation and

internal integration that must take place. Thirdly, projects or initiatives are often short-term with

a start and an end date, which may result in leaders losing sight of the longevity required in most

organizations to develop and maintain a sustainable food safety culture. Although, all three areas

are important they do not provide a comprehensive method to characterize food safety culture in

food manufacturing when considered individually.

Most organizations select or are required to follow a defined performance standard.

These performance standards define the most critical food safety tasks, competencies, and

behaviours required by the organization and standards are either defined by the organization

itself or provided by external bodies. Performance standards from regulatory bodies (e.g., CFIA,


6

FDA) and private standard owners (e.g., BRC, SQF) provide a measure against which an

assessment of a food manufacturer’s food safety management system can be made and would, by

some, be considered a measure and evaluation of food safety culture in a food manufacturing

plant.

Purpose and Objectives

Despite the apparent interest of industry, service providers and academia, food safety

culture in food manufacturing has received little attention. The purpose of this research is to

investigate existing literature for measures of food safety culture and meet two objectives. The

primary objective of the current study was to define characteristics to assess food safety culture

in food manufacturing. A second objective was to translate these characteristics into capabilities

relevant to food manufacturers as measures to assess and improve food safety culture.


7

Chapter 1 Literature Review

To write a review about the concept of food safety culture poses a dilemma because there

is presently little agreement on what the concept does and should mean, how it should be

observed and measured, and how it should be used in efforts to improve food safety performance.

The review covers multiple disciplines such as organizational culture, food science, and social

cognitive science. To coordinate findings in these very different disciplines a decision was made

to apply the mapping method (Wendler, 2012). This method analyzes literature by mapping

findings to predefined questions. As such, five questions specific to food safety culture were

defined (Table 1-1) and used to search for relevant literature, to provide a summary of the

broader concept and to provide an understanding of where the concept of food safety culture was

covered in-depth and where there were gaps.

Table 1-1: Literature review mapping questions and objective

# Question

Objective

1 What characterizes food safety

culture?

Define food safety culture and its

characteristics. It investigated proposed

characteristics of food safety culture in

published literature and highlighted current

gaps.

2 How have applied methods and

amount of research changed over

Build an understanding of work completed

over time to define and characterize food


8

# Question

Objective

time? safety culture. Investigated applied methods

within the topic, analyzed methods for their

applicability, and highlighted gaps.

3 How is food safety culture measured

and evaluated? Are findings validated?

Define methods for measuring and evaluating

food safety culture and highlighted gaps.

Defined validation and investigated methods

applied to validate findings in published

literature.

4 How can the effectiveness of food

safety culture be predicted?

Build an understanding of how to predict

effectiveness of food safety culture and

highlight potential gaps.

5 How is the focus on food safety culture

distributed across the food supply

chain? (from farm to fork).

Investigate if some sectors are more active in

sharing knowledge of food safety culture than

others and discussed the risk of a potential

topic gap.

Scope and search areas of the literature review.

The review was focused on all literature dealing with food safety culture and sought to

find knowledge specific to food safety culture in food manufacturing organizations. A food


9

manufacturer was defined as any organization that designs, produces and distributes food for sale

through retailers and/or food service establishments.

The literature search was conducted in Primo Central at the University of Guelph. The

Primo Central database was accessed to find books, peer-reviewed journal articles, e-books, e-

journals and news articles. The search was extended to Google Scholar to identify and access

non-peer-reviewed reports (e.g. government research reports) in addition to peer-reviewed

sources.

Theoretical framework and culture dimensions.

Reason (1998) determined that there is no universally accepted definition of culture. In

order to study how to characterize and measure food safety culture a definition is required. One

definition of organizational culture refers to how a group solves its problems relative to external

adaptation and internal integration and proposes that organizational culture is:

A pattern of shared assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems.

The group has found these assumptions to work well enough to be considered valid and

are therefore taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in

relation to these problems (Schein, 2010).

Research specific to food safety culture suggests a definition with less emphasis on

external adaptation and the group aspect and more emphasis on the attitudes, values and beliefs

existing within a particular food-handling environment (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010b;

Yiannas, 2009). In some cases, food safety culture is simply about behaviours (Yiannas, 2009) or

as a combination of people and science (Hanacek, 2010). For the purpose of this research


10

Schein’s definition of organizational culture was adopted and applied to identify research gaps,

and used as the basis for discussion of the literature review findings.

Theoretical framework.

Dimensions of organizational culture as defined by Schein (2010) were found helpful as

a theoretical framework to characterize an individual organization’s food safety culture and also

useful to compare multiple organizations (Table 1-2). The analysis of the existing literature was

conducted to identify existing knowledge in each of the five dimensions.

Table 1-2: Summary of culture dimensions and characteristics adapted from Schein’s organizational

culture dimensions (Schein, 2010)

Dimension Characteristics

External Adaptation Mission and goals, means (day-to-day behaviours, skills,

knowledge, time and technology) to reach goals, degree of

autonomy, how does the organization decide what to measure,

measures (what and how), how to judge success, remediate and

repair processes, and crisis history.

Internal Integration System of communication, common language, group selection

and exclusion criteria, allocation systems (influence, power and

authority), rules for relationships and systems for rewards and

punishment.


11

Dimension Characteristics

Reality and truth High vs. low context, definition of truth, information – data and

knowledge needs; training and competencies; systems e.g. sign-

off, continuous improvement.

Time and space Four different dimensions for characterizing time orientation;

assumptions around time management.

Human nature, activity and

relationship

Theory x/y managers, the doing/being/being-in-becoming

orientation, and four basic problems to be solved in a group:

identity and role; power and influence; needs and goals;

acceptance and intimacy, individualism/groupism, power

distance and accepted behaviours & practices.

Applying organizational culture dimensions to characterize food safety culture.

External adaptation.

Management is essential for the effectiveness of food safety culture. Management

includes governing systems used to execute food safety practices and the enforcement of

compliance with these systems (Griffith, 2010). It is suggested that management commitment, or

top-down commitment, and the approach that management takes to integrate a food safety

management system will impact food safety culture (Ball, Wilcock, & Aung, 2009; Hanacek,

2010) Management is a broad term and it would be incorrect to assume that the same


12

management principles and tactics will work at any given stage of maturity for any given food

safety culture (Hanacek, 2010). Managers must ensure that food handlers have the appropriate

means to effectively turn learned theory into safe food handling practices and managers play an

important role in adding knowledge to employees through on-the-job coaching (MacAuslan,

2013; Pilling et al., 2008).

An important characteristic in external adaptation is employee autonomy. Research

findings support the notion that employee autonomy and facilitation of better solutions strongly

influence hygiene behaviour changes (G. Sarter & Sarter, 2012) External adaptation was

covered well by the existing literature with the exception of crisis history. It is argued that an

organizational culture is impacted by crisis history (e.g., recall, incident) (Schein, 2010) and

there were no findings of its importance in the current literature.

Internal integration.

Continuous and varied communication is an important factor for managers to drive food

safety behaviours (Arendt, Paez, & Strohbehn, 2013; Ball, Wilcock, & Aung, 2009; Chapman,

Eversley, Fillion, MacLaurin, & Powell, 2010; Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010a). One study

quantifies this through analysis of quotes from 36 food service professionals where the majority

focused on the characteristics of communication systems (Arendt, Paez, & Strohbehn, 2013).

Other communication tactics, such as positive feedback on food safety practices well

executed by a supervisor, will also affect future food safety practices (Ball, Wilcock, & Aung,

2009). Edwards et al. (2006) discussed the importance of having a set of communication tactics

available that may be applied at different stages of changing culture, as one communication


13

tactic cannot be expected to be equally effective at all stages of change (Edwards, Takeuchi,

Hillers, McCurdy, & Edlefsen, 2006). Having the right means, such as time, resources and staff,

is suggested to affect food handlers’ self-reported intent to carry out food safety practices

(Clayton, Griffith, Price, & Peters, 2002). Griffith et al. (2002) suggest workload impacts how

an individual considers food safety as part of their own value and belief system and continue on

to discuss the importance of report reward systems as an important driver for an individual to

commit to food safety (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010a). The presence of a formal reward

and recognition program and the significance of having such a program owned and driven by

senior leadership are important (Seward, 2012).

Internal integration was covered well by existing literature with the exception of

measures (Seward, 2012). As argued earlier, food safety culture is an interdisciplinary concept

and, although a few authors argue the importance of individual components, these were not

researched in existing literature as an integrated interdisciplinary system.

Reality and truth.

The importance of training is highlighted not only for an individual carrying out a task

but also for managers who are supposed to support individuals in performing desired food safety

behaviours daily (Arendt, Paez, & Strohbehn, 2013; Ball, Wilcock, & Aung, 2009; Edwards,

Takeuchi, Hillers, McCurdy, & Edlefsen, 2006). Meyer argued that deconstructing a process

step followed by determination of desired behaviours and targeted training can drive sustainable

behaviour change if combined with training, task observations, and feedback (Meyer, 2013). Yet

few training programs effectively incorporate elements of food safety culture in the curriculum


14

(MacAuslan, 2013). It is suggested that unless training is developed using a risk-based approach,

training might not influence food handler and consumer behaviours as needed and intended

(Clayton, Griffith, Price, & Peters, 2002; Kwon, Ryu, & Zottarelli, 2007; Medeiros et al., 2006).

Gaining the appropriate knowledge and skills through training can enable employees to sign off

on food safety records, which by some are seen as important to demonstrate desired behaviours

(Ball, Wilcock, & Aung, 2009). Mandatory training was assessed and it was found to be

associated with improved compliance with some food safety behaviours (Pilling et al., 2008).

However, institutionalizing an audit or inspection system to reinforce the use of food safety

knowledge is needed to continuously develop consistent, desirable food safety attitudes and

behaviours (Staskel, Briley, & Curtis, 2007). Reality and truth were covered well by the existing

literature, especially around training characteristics. Some studies were focused on measuring the

impact of training and training effort. A gap was found in connecting the various information,

data, and knowledge needs. Each were mostly addressed individually, as was the case with

training, and few looked at the on-going data need and how this could be applied to measure and

predict an organization’s food safety culture.

The nature of time and space.

The cultural dimension of time and space is a description of the basic orientation in terms

of past, present, and future and investigates what time units are most relevant for the conduct of

daily affairs. There are no references found in the literature to time and space knowledge and this

was determined to be worthy of future research.


15

Human nature, activity and relationship.

Hinsz et al. (2007) propose that human nature can be described through self-reported

behaviours and they present a model where food safety behaviours are predicted by intention to

behave, attitude towards the behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control.

Further, this model proposed that work habits influenced food safety behaviour (Hinsz, Nickell,

& Park, 2007).

Leaders’ behaviours can be characterized as transactional or transformational and,

depending on the mix of these in an organization’s leadership, it will affect if there is an

overwhelming long-term view to food safety or an immediate, fire-fighting view to food safety.

Transactional leaders tend to be more focused on immediate responses, whereas transformational

leaders have a long-term vision (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010a). Nickell and Hinsz (2011)

argue that food safety climate and the personal trait, conscientiousness, influence and predict

food safety behaviours (Nickell & Hinsz, 2011b). Ball et al. (2009) argue that a positive outlook

and attitude of an employee will influence the likelihood that food safety practices are adhered to.

They also stated that a good relationship with peers also positively influences employees to

follow appropriate food safety practices.

To characterize food safety behaviours, it is argued by many that an emphasis should be

placed on a detailed breakdown of process steps and desired behaviours defined in detail so that

these can be accurately explained to others and observed for compliance (Chapman, Eversley,

Fillion, MacLaurin, & Powell, 2010; Clayton & Griffith, 2004; Meyer, 2013). The detailed

definition of desired behaviours can be applied to investigate how mistakes are dealt with in an


16

organization. Is it one of blame or absolution? Either can affect any level of the organization,

management, supervisors and food handlers, and their food safety practices (Griffith, Livesey, &

Clayton, 2010a).

Human nature, activity and relationships were found to be covered very well in the

existing literature through the application of social cognitive models specific to the field of food

safety (Ball, Wilcock, & Aung, 2009; Clayton & Griffith, 2008; Hinsz, Nickell, & Park, 2007).

However, only a few studies dealt specifically with food manufacturing and those that did were

found to apply acknowledged social cognitive theories combined with statistical evaluation

methods. A gap exists in integrating measures such as these into other disciplines to provide an

integrated approach to measure all dimensions of food safety culture.

Measuring and evaluating food safety characteristics.

While some research has described a process of measuring food safety culture in

manufacturing it is not clear what theory or practices these were founded on (Seward, 2012).

This section seeks to find methods that have been applied to measure organizational culture. The

methods were grouped in three categories; performance standards, maturity models, and social

cognitive models.

Measuring using standards for award applications and performance standards.

Different standards exist for any organization to select when evaluating its food safety

culture. Award standards (e.g., Baldridge Award, Black Pearl) are those against which

organizations are evaluated when applying for a specific award. The Baldridge award evaluates

several dimensions of an organization, many of which would fall into the dimensions of culture


17

and is considered multidisciplinary in both its assessment and requirements. The Black Pearl

Award also measures against a number of categories and many of these fall into the culture

dimensions. Performance standards (e.g., ISO9000:2003, GFSI benchmarked standards (such as

British Retail Consortium (BRC), and Canada Gap) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s

Food Safety Enhancement Program (FSEP), though very system oriented, also evaluate some

characteristics of culture.

Measuring using maturity models.

Maturity models are used to evaluate the current state of a given culture and process,

improvement against a scale of maturity and competency. Maturity models are most often

specific to a subject matter (e.g., information technology or occupational health and safety) and a

wide range of industries has defined maturity models for use in improving organizational culture

performance. Three maturity models were reviewed to investigate their value for measuring

culture.

Quality.

In 1972 Crosby published the book “Quality is Free” (Crosby, 1972) one of the first

written references to the use of maturity models. Crosby speaks of management as responsible

for establishing the purpose of an operation, determining measurable objectives, and taking the

actions necessary to accomplish those objectives. Although management is usually thought of as

having to do with chartered corporations, it operates elsewhere also.

The need for long-range programs in quality can be deduced through the Management

Maturity Grid. Anyone can spend a few minutes with the grid and decide where an organization


18

is at, or go to the next stage and know what needs to be done to move forward. The grid is

divided into five stages of maturity. Six management categories serve as the experience relations

that anyone must go through to complete the matrix. By reading the experience condensed in

each block within the grid, it is possible to identify a specific organization’s cultural situation.

Stage 1 is Uncertainty and can be described as confused and uncommitted. A self-

fulfilling prophecy is created that unsolved problems will always be around. The result is

emotion at the management level best defined by the question “who did it?” The cost of quality

is not in the uncertainty vocabulary. Everyone in the uncertain stage works hard and most are

frustrated at the amount of brute force that is required to keep the organization moving.

Stage 2 is Awakening; simpler but no more complex than the stage of uncertainty.

Management realizes that quality can help but is unwilling to devote the time and money to make

it happen. Inspection and testing is performed more often in the stage of awakening but the basic

problems are not solved. Teams are set out to solve problems but their scope is limited to the

near future. An organization in the stage of awakening puts together a motivation package, gives

speeches and has special lunches. More is required and it is usually when this is clear to

management is the time that change happens and pushes the organization forward or back to the

stage of uncertainty.

Stage 3 is Enlightenment and signified by the establishment of a formal quality policy.

One of the most recognizable signs of this is in how the organization solves its problems. Facing

problems openly, without individuals to blame, produces a smoothly functioning system for

resolving problems. It is acknowledged that systems are only road maps and that personal


19

enthusiasm makes them work or not. The cost of quality will now get its first fair evaluation. An

official quality improvement team now heads quality. The team’s purpose is to establish a

system and attitudes that will last for a long time; one so entrenched that it would take a hard-

working quality reduction team to deactivate it.

Stage 4 is Wisdom and is an entirely different matter. The stage of wisdom is a great time

to run a company. Any task you want to accomplish can be tackled successfully. The attitude, the

systems, and the enthusiasm are all there waiting.

Stage 5 is Certainty and you know a company at this stage if you see one. It is summed

up in one sentence “We know why we do not have problems with quality.” It is the stage of

complete defect prevention. Errors are not expected and not taken lightly if one occurs.

Health Care.

Goonan et al. (2009) describes the journey of health care organizations towards their

Baldridge award (Goonan, Muzikowski, & Stoltz, 2009). The Baldridge award is part of the U.S.

National Quality Program and the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Improvement Act was

signed into law in 1987. The focus of the program is to help companies improve quality and

productivity and recognize these achievements as an example for others to follow. The program

has established guidelines and criteria and provides specific guidance to companies who wish to

improve quality (Baldridge Performance Award, 2014). Many organizations that are preparing

for the Baldridge assessment have reached a plateau in their achievements and are looking for an

impetus for change. Many have been on a journey to change culture for years before the

assessment. While none of the recipients characterized Baldridge as the silver bullet, most


20

described seeking a systems model to help them unify around one common framework (Goonan,

Muzikowski, & Stoltz, 2009).

The maturity model developed by Goonan et al. (2009) has five stages to maturity:

Reaction, Projects, Traction, Integration, and Sustaining and a specific journey was mapped to

illustrate the development in performance and the dynamics of this journey (Figure 2-1).

Figure 1-1: "The Journey" described by Goonan et al. (2009)

Stage Zero is Reaction, which defines a compliance-focused organization, waiting for the

next external mandate to improve, not capable of broad-scale measurable excellence or

innovation.


21

Stage 1 Projects is the stage during which there is a belief that projects will address

problems and can make a difference. The limitations to this approach, however, arise when the

organization seeks transformational change, when the leaders set out to achieve more

fundamental and broad-reaching culture change. No single initiative or set of unaligned projects

will likely be enough to produce system-level results. Organizations can see that other sector

competitors are simply performing better and improvement is not optional for survival. The stage

is typified by the following remark made by Sister Mary Jean, Saint Luke’s Health System “We

realize that we wanted to change the culture, not just conduct projects. It proved much harder

than we thought but also much more important.” (Goonan, Muzikowski, & Stoltz, 2009).

Baldridge may be delegated and managed like a project but this approach typically flounders

because without engaged and committed senior leadership, the initiative fails to gain the traction

needed to instigate fundamental culture change.

Stage 2 is Traction and this stage reflects how senior leaders describe their experience of

gaining a toehold on cultural transformation. It is during the stage traction that executives begin

to consolidate and leverage their investments in transformational change, allocate resources to

identify and design key leadership and management processes and start to gain momentum.

Messaging around the Baldridge award turns from “we are chasing an award” to “we are

improving”. The award recipients describe the step of feedback as enlightening and provocative

but sometimes painful. Good-to-great companies continually refine the path to greatness by

taking account of the brutal facts of reality. It is reported that companies successfully

implementing organizational transformation are more likely to communicate the need for change


22

in a positive way, encouraging people to build on success rather than focusing exclusively on

fixing problems.

Challenges to the traction maturity stage occur when organizations treat Baldridge as a

project. When staff and employees who are mired in the daily challenges of work assume

leadership is making an investment of time and resources to obtain another trophy, a “cultural

award toxicity” appears that can undermine the learning process and it is easy to be caught in

crisis and abandon the journey.

Stage 3 is Integration, which follows the stage of traction and usually occurs after a few

cycles of assessment, feedback and improvement. Leaders begin to see the connection between

Baldridge elements during the integration stage. This is illustrated by a quote from John Heer,

CEO, North Mississippi hospital (Goonan, Muzikowski, & Stoltz, 2009), who stated that: “It

takes three to five years to build a truly capable organization. After four years of focus and

learning it is time to focus on alignment and integration across categories”. In other words,

culture change is not a project. In this stage, leaders grow process literate and activities such as

huddles and other regular communication events start to cement themselves within the

organization. Through their Baldridge journey, organizations are provoked to align and integrate

their communication process with other knowledge management processes or their organizations

as a system. Interdisciplinary behaviours start becoming natural to leaders in the integration stage.

Stage 4 is Sustaining and is best illustrated by a successful senior leader who learns and

changes their personal style over time. This is the mark of a strong leader. What distinguishes the

CEOs of Baldridge recipients is how they measure their own personal success against the


23

maturity of their organizations and the degree to which their systems are sustained despite

changes in incumbents. This is found to be a significant descriptor of any organization reaching

the sustaining stage.

Control Objectives for Information and related Technology.

Obtaining an objective view of an enterprise’s own performance level is not easy. What

should be measured and how? Enterprises need to measure where they are and where

improvement is required, and implement a management tool kit to monitor improvement.

Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology (CobiT) (“COBIT 5”, 2014)

deals with these issues by providing tools, such as maturity models, performance goals and

metrics and activity goals. The maturity model, as defined by CobiT, has five maturity stages and

six attributes; (1) Awareness and communication, (2) Policies, plans and procedures, (3) Tools

and automation, (4) Skills and expertise, (5) Responsibility and accountability, and (6) Goal

setting and measurements.

The maturity model helps an individual organization understand what industry peers are

doing and how the latter’s performance compares to its own. The model summarizes acceptable

industry practices and allows the organization to identify what will be required to reach a certain

level of management and control of these practices.

A generic definition is provided for the maturity scale and interpreted for the nature of

CobiT’s IT management processes. A specific maturity model is provided for each of CobiT’s 34

processes. The purpose is to identify issues and how to set priorities. They are not designed for

use as a threshold model where one cannot move to the next higher level without having fulfilled


24

all conditions of the lower level. A maturity scale has to be practical and easy to understand and

can facilitate raising awareness, capture broader consensus and motivate improvement. Thus, the

maturity model is a way to measure how well-developed the management process and supporting

culture is.

Measuring using social cognitive models.

This section provides a definition of social cognition and a brief overview of three

models applied in the food industry and a summary of their differences. A number of social

cognitive models deal with description and quantification of organizational culture (Taylor,

2011) Social cognitive theory is a learning theory based on the idea that people learn through

observing others. Cognition is the act of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought,

experience, and the senses. It is important to note that learning can occur without behaviour

change. While behaviour change is the most common sign of learning, it cannot be assumed

(Bandura, 1988; Howes, 1996).

Health action process approach.

In the health action process approach (HAPA), predictive models were defined and

applied in studies of food handling behaviours with contradictory results (Mullan, Wong, &

O'Moore, 2010). Mullan et al. introduced the intention-behaviour gap and argue that some

models other than HAPA are a better predictor of intention than behaviours. HAPA was

developed as an attempt at closing this gap. This model of health behaviours argues that health

behaviour change is a process consisting of two phases, a motivational (formation of intent)

phase and a volitional phase. Formation of intent is driven by risk awareness, outcome


25

expectancies, and perceived self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as a measure of the belief in

one's own ability to complete tasks and reach goals and is seen as the strongest influencer of

motivation and strongest predictor of intention. The volitional phase involves turning intent into

actual behaviours and includes three variables (1) planning, (2) maintaining self-efficacy, and (3)

recovery of self-efficacy. Habit is introduced in the model as a potential important predictor of

food handling behaviours, as food safety behaviours are, in this study and for this application of

HAPA, considered habitual.

Health Belief Model.

Individuals within the Health Belief Model will adopt a health-related behaviour when

they consider themselves susceptible to a risk (perceived susceptibility). They will consider the

consequences of the risk to be serious (perceived severity), and believe the benefits of adopting

the behaviour (perceived benefit) outweigh the personal costs of adopting such behaviours

(perceived barriers) (Edwards, Takeuchi, Hillers, McCurdy, & Edlefsen, 2006). Self-efficacy and

cues to action is another important part of the Health Belief Model. Edwards et al. (2006) defined

self-efficacy as an individual’s belief that she/he can take personal action to reduce the chance of

foodborne illness.

Reasoned Action Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviours.

The Reasoned Action Model describes how intent can be used to predict behaviour

through the measurement of Attitude and Subjective Norms. The difference in the Reasoned

Action Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviours is the inclusion of Perceived Control in the

Theory of Planned Behaviours (Ajzen, 2011; Clayton & Griffith, 2008; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2009).


26

The Theory of Planned Behaviour provides a tool whereby scientists can evaluate an individual's

belief-based attitude(s) regarding a particular action or behavior and social influences

surrounding the individual, and to possibly predict a behavioral outcome from that person's

intentions to perform the behaviour. The model assumes that all behaviours are entirely

volitional and does not offer a construct for dealing with non-volitional behaviours. In other

words, attitude and subjective norms might not be the only reason for a person’s decision to

behave in a certain way. The Theory of Planned Behaviour does offer a tool for non-volitional

controlled behaviours with the introduction of perceived control. The Theory of Planned

Behaviour has been found to be a significantly better predictor of behaviour than the Reasoned

Action Model. Theoretically, perceived behavioural control addresses both external (e.g., money,

time) and internal factors (e.g., skills, will power) and provides a basis for identifying where and

how to target strategies for changing behavior.

Validate measures and evaluations of food safety characteristics.

Validation in this study refers to how well a test measures what it is purported to measure

(Colin, 2005). A lesson learned from occupational health and safety is the validity of the

behaviours being measured. It was found that care must be taken not to focus on everyday

observable behaviours only and lose sight of less observable behaviours such as management

response to the discovery of an unfavorable test result (Wright & Leach, 2013).


27

Conclusion and Recommendations

Food safety culture must be considered as an interdisciplinary concept where

organizational culture, food science, and social cognitive science overlap. This overlap will help

define characteristics and measures specific to food safety culture based on substantial existing

knowledge in all three areas.

Much work has been completed to characterize and measure organizational culture. In his

book “Organizational culture and leadership”, Schein (2009) describes dimensions applied

widely across sectors and disciplines to build understanding and improve organizational culture.

Schein’s dimensions of organizational culture: external adaptation; internal integration; reality

and truth; time and space; and human nature, activity, and relationship brings a simple theoretical

framework upon which the literature review was structured and analyzed. Research was

completed, although papers were structured differently than the dimensions, with the exception

of reality and truth. No research was found on this organizational culture dimension.

The review provides insight into three methods for measuring organizational culture:

performance standards and awards; social cognitive models; and maturity models. Performance

standards and awards are, with the exception of the Baldridge award, specific to food

manufacturing and contain clear requirements and processes for measuring a food

manufacturer’s performance against these requirements. The challenge with this approach as a

stand-alone measure of food safety culture is that audits are often carried out once per year,

which makes it difficult for results to indicate performance of a given food safety culture at a

frequency that allows immediate actions.


28

Social cognitive models have been applied in studies of food safety behaviours and

practices. These methods delve deeply into what drives humans to perform a given behaviour

and have been applied across many industries and disciplines. The challenge with this approach

as a stand-alone measure of food safety culture is that these methods only take into account

internal integration and human nature, activity, and relationship. Social cognitive models leave

out important characteristics such as means to act (financial and technological), how to correct

and remediate a mistake, how to judge success, and knowledge needs.

Maturity models provide a tool for organizations to map their current level of maturity

and project a path for its journey forward. Models applied in quality management, health care,

and information technology were reviewed and all provided good detail of the maturity journey

for their respective areas. The challenge with this approach as a stand-alone measure for food

safety culture is that each maturity stage does not pinpoint exact behaviours and therefore makes

it difficult to measure any organizational culture with great precision. Without precision, it is

difficult to prioritize where to focus effort to improve culture.

Gaps were identified in each of the five organizational dimensions and weaknesses

associated with each measurement method were uncovered. It is proposed that a behaviour-based

food safety maturity model be defined by the food science literature and industry experts to act

as a food safety culture map for any given food manufacturer. Further, the measurement system

must be defined by merging organizational culture theory, social cognitive science and an

evaluation of the food manufacturer’s food safety performance. Food safety performance should

be evaluated through documented evidence of performance specific to the individual company.


29

Characteristics and measures for food safety culture must be defined and tested to

provide the impetus for food manufacturers to focus, in times of great change, on the ongoing,

long journey to improve food safety culture and it is suggested that research is continued to find

answers to the questions: What characterizes food safety culture? and How can food safety

culture be measured?


30

Chapter 2 Assessment of applied performance standards in meat

processing

Introduction

Performance standards are an important component of any food manufacturing

organization. As these standards are applied in any given food manufacturing organization

documentation is often required to ensure evidence of performance and as a baseline against

which plants can plan and execute corrective and preventive actions. These documents were

investigated as a potential measure of food safety culture and evaluated as a tool for

enhancement of culture in a meat processing company.

Method

Written documentation from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 was examined from

eight meat plants: five prepared meat plants and three fresh meat plants. The written material

comprised of audit reports, a food safety scorecard, and performance minutes. Each of these

three sets of documents were analyzed for dimensions and characteristics of organizational

culture as defined in Schein’s (2009) theoretical framework (Table 1-2).

The documents were imported into NVivo 10 (QSR International, Burlington, MA) using

an anonymised numbering convention. The convention enabled the analysis of findings specific

to a plant without revealing the plant’s identity. NVivo 10 software is a qualitative research tool

designed to organize and analyze non-numerical or unstructured data, such as audio, video,

photos and text. The NVivo qualitative analysis was conducted using a content analysis


31

following the process defined by Berg and Lund (2012). Each coded paragraph was counted and

analysis completed to quantify factors e.g., role, continuous improvement important to measure

food safety culture.

Audit reports

The audit reports contained findings from two audits for each of the eight plants, an

external and an internal audit. The findings were described in the form of conformance or non-

conformance to the specific performance standard. The standards in this investigation were the

external British Retail Consortium (BRC) standard and the company’s own internal product

compliance standard.

All audit reports were carefully read to define open codes based on the dimensions and

characteristics of organizational culture. Each open code was further broken into axial codes to

analyze for evidence of the individual characteristic. For example, the cultural dimension and

characteristic internal integration and role was coded in each audit report and the collective

findings in the role open code was further explored in the axial codes: Quality, Plant manager,

Maintenance, Sanitation, Employee, Accredited lab, CFIA, Customer, and Outside contractor

(Table 2-1). Occurrences of both open and axial codes were captured in NVivo for all 16 audit

reports.


32

Table 2-1: Audit report open- and axial codes

Open code Axial codes

Role Quality, Plant manager, Maintenance, Sanitation, Employee,

Accredited lab, CFIA, Customer, and Outside contractor.

Continuous improvement Inspection, verification, corrective action, calibration, testing, and

measures.

Training Training, education, knowledge, and proficiency (competency).

Technology Specific systems, plant specific systems

Group Established teams, references to groups (structural or ad-hoc)

Communication Written, spoken, and dialog (e.g., interview).

NVivo was used to code the following questions related to audit reports and their use in

measuring food safety culture.

1. What evidence was there of established groups? Evidence of responsibility?

2. What evidence was there of systems of communication in the group?

3. What evidence was there of training needs? Training effectiveness?

4. What evidence was there of technology application?


33

5. What evidence was there of who is doing the work?

6. What evidence was there of accepted behaviours and practices?

Food safety scorecard

The food safety scorecard was developed and implemented by the company in 2010 and

the procedure for collecting, reporting, and analyzing the scorecard data had been in place for

two years before January 1, 2013.

This documentation was selected for the research as a representative measure of the

company’s track record against the specific performance standard chosen within the company.

As such, four measures in the food safety scorecard were analyzed: Hazard Analysis Critical

Control Point (HACCP) performance, Sanitation performance, Performance in the

Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP), and Training performance. These measures were an

integrated part of every plant’s food safety system and data were made available covering 12

months for all eight plants.

The food safety scorecard data was imported into Minitab 10 (Minitab Inc. State College,

PA) using an anonymised numbering convention. Minitab 10 is a general-purpose statistical

software package designed as a primary tool for analyzing research data. The examination of the

data was conducted using descriptive statistical principles to understand level and consistency in

performance for each food safety scorecard metric. As such, mean, standard deviations, and

capability indecies (Cp, Cpk) were calculated.


34

Each measure was analyzed to determine the mean performance by month, stability in

performance over time, and ability to meet company-determined standards over the course of the

year (Table 2-2).


35

Table 2-2: Food safety scorecard measures, metrics, and performance standards

Measure Metric Company specific

performance standard

HACCP Deviation count

Deviations closed on time

Minimum 5 deviations

reported per period

100%

Sanitation

Percentage compliance to visual inspection

standard

Less than80% compliance

Percentage compliance to ATP standard 100%

EMP Percentage positive Listeria L1 swabs Zero findings

Training Percentage compliance to training standard 1 training event per employee

per period

The analysis in Minitab helped address the following questions related to the food safety

scorecard and its use in measuring food safety culture.

1. Describe the overall company performance.

2. What was the comparative performance ranking of capability within the eight plants?


36

3. What was the comparative ranking of the four measures?

4. Was there any significant statistical difference between plants?

5. Was there any significant statistical difference between measures?

Performance minutes

The performance minutes were plant-specific documents designed to capture the

discussion of the monthly food safety performance by the plant leadership team. The format had

been standardized across all of the company’s plants since 2010 and used to documented specific

actions and assigned responsibilities based on the measures reviewed. As such, the performance

minutes were treated as evidence of the plant’s success and failure perceptions and actions to

correct and remediate if the plant did not meet the company’s performance standards. These data

(covering a 12 month period) were selected for this research as a representative measure of

evidence of food safety discussions and actions within each of the eight plants.

Two parts of the performance minutes were investigated: summary of the plant

leadership’s discussions and assigned actions by month by plant. Each part was analyzed to

determine if there was evidence to support the dimensions and characteristics of organizational

culture identified in the literature review (Table 1-2). A qualitative analysis was completed

searching for answers to questions related to food safety culture e.g., completeness of actions,

group engagement.

The questions were defined to help analyze the data for comparison between plants.

1. Were the performance minutes completed? Detailed? Lacking?


37

2. How were actions on performance standards reflected in the performance minutes?

3. How was group engagement and accountability reflected in the performance minutes?

The questions explored the completeness of the performance minutes, the performance

against standard, and if there was evidence in the performance minutes of group engagement and

accountability.


38

Results

Audit reports.

The content analysis identified 1,452 paragraphs coded across the 16 audit documents in

the six open codes and percentage per open code was calculated (Table 2-3).

Table 2-3: Organizational culture characteristics and open code results

Organizational culture

characteristic

Open code Open code result

Internal integration: Group

identification, engagement, and

accountability

Role 56% (813 paragraphs)

Reality and truth: continuous

improvement approach and

evidence

Continuous improvement 24% (347 paragraphs)

External adaptation: means (e.g.,

finances, people) identification

and allocating

Means 9% (136 paragraphs)

Internal integration:

communication approach and

frequency

Communication 5% (79 paragraphs)


39

Organizational culture

characteristic

Open code Open code result

Reality and truth: measures and

technology applied

Technology enabled 5% (67 paragraphs)

Internal integration: Group

identification, engagement, and

accountability

Group 1% (10 paragraphs)

Results indicate that some organizational culture characteristics are evaluated and

documented through the audit reports. Specifically, internal integration through the individual

roles within the group (56%) and reality and truth through evidence of continuous improvement

(24%) were found in the audit process and coding exercise. Other culture characteristics were

mentioned less in the audit reports, including external adaptation through identification of means

(9%), internal integration through communication (5%), reality and truth through measures and

technology (5%), and internal integration through the group identification (1%).

These results suggest that the audit reports are not sufficient on their own to measure

food safety culture as only two cultural dimensions and characteristics were found to be part of

the audit reports.


40

Food safety scorecard.

Results from the overall company were analyzed through the food safety scorecard

measures and standards (Table 2-4).

Table 2-4: Food safety scorecard analysis

Measure Standard Result

HACCP Number of deviations > 5 per

period per plant.

Mean 30 deviations raised per

period (median 13)

All deviations closed out on time. Mean percentage closed on time

78% (median 92%)

Sanitation Eighty percentage or less

compliance to visual inspection

standard

Mean percentage acceptable visual

96.6% (median 0.97)

Pass on all ATP test to plant

standard

Mean percentage passed ATP tests

68.9% (median 0.91)

EMP Zero Listeria level 1 findings 5 findings

Training 1 training event per employee per

period

Mean percentage training per

employee per period 1.5 (median

1.4)


41

Analysis of HACCP performance revealed that a substantial number of deviations

markedly above the company standard was reported; with plants reporting, on average, 30

deviations per period. Of all deviations, 78% were closed on time leaving closure of 22% of

deviations below the company standard. Sanitation performance showed 96.6% of all visual

inspections met plant specific standards with 68.9% of all ATP tests passing the plant specific

ATP standard. The plants detected 5 Listeria L1 findings against a standard of zero findings.

Finally, on average plants were found to deliver 1.5 training events to each employee per period.

This average was substantially above the company standard of 1.0 training event per employee

per period. All plants reported a higher number of deviations than standard (min. 5 per period).

One plant was at standard for closing deviation corrective actions on time, three were close

(more than 96% closed on time), and four met the standard (all corrective actions closed on time).

All plants failed to meet the standard set for visual inspections (less than 80% compliance) and

four plants were close to the standard of 100% ATP compliance and four were below standard.

Three plants trained people substantially more than once per month, two were above, and three

plants below standard (Appendix B).


42

Table 2-5: Mean performance per plant per measure

Measure

Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Number HACCP deviations 6 5 8 15 71 8 9 39

Percentage HACCP corrective

actions closed on time 100 99 2 99 75 86 96 69

Percentage acceptable visual

inspections 99 93 96 97 98 97 97 95

Percentage ATP swabs meeting

plant standard 96 79 0 98 0 90 95 93

Number of training events per

employee per month 2.4 0.3 2.8 0.8 3.1 0.1 1.5 1.4

These results suggest that the food safety scorecard is not sufficient as a stand-alone tool

to measure food safety culture as only two cultural characteristics, external adaptation through

what and how to measure and reality and truth through a clearly identified data need were

covered by the food safety scorecard data.

Performance minutes.

Results from the overall company were analyzed using the performance minutes (Table

2-6). Each plant’s performance minutes were evaluated based on answers to questions defined in

the method and a score assigned. The three-point scoring scale was defined as, (1) no evidence

found, (2) three or less instances found, and (3) four or more instances found. An instance would

be a direct mention of action item, plant manager engagement, internal audit team engagement,

and HACCP team engagement in the performance minutes for any given month.


43

Two of eight plants showed evidence in the performance minutes that actions were taken

based on the food safety scorecard and other performance measures. Five of eight plants did

document engagement by the plant manager e.g., as owner of actions, escalation of issues, in

both the meetings and in solving food safety problems. Aside from recording names of the

meeting participants on the meeting minutes, little evidence was found of group engagement and

accountability across the plants including reference to already established food safety groups,

such as the Internal Audit team and HACCP team.

Table 2-6: Summary of performance minutes by plant and evaluation criteria. (1) = no evidence

found, (2) = little evidence found, and (3) = good evidence found.

Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Plant 6 Plant 7 Plant 8

Action

evidence

1 1 3 1 1 1 2 3

Plant Manager

engagement

3 1 3 3 3 2 1 3

Internal Audit

team

1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2

HACCP team 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2

Total (% of

total)

6 (50%) 4 (33%) 10 (83%) 8 (67%) 7 (58%) 5 (42%) 7 (58%) 10 (83%)

These results suggest that the performance minutes are not solely sufficient to measure

food safety culture as only three cultural characteristics, external integration through success

measures, internal integration through group selection, and human nature, activity, and

relationship, were found covered through the performance minutes.


44

Coverage of cultural dimensions in performance standard documentation

Some evidence was found that performance standards could act as a measure of food

safety culture. To understand this better three sets of documentation were analyzed for coverage

of organizational culture dimensions and characteristics (Table 2-7). The results were obtained

through the coding by cultural dimension across all three sets of documents from all plants.

Results indicate that only three of five dimensions were covered and within each only some of

the characteristics of the dimension were included. These results suggest that performance

standards can be a part of a food safety culture measurement system but cannot be seen as a

stand-alone measurement tool.


45

Table 2-7: Coverage of cultural dimensions by individual documentation across all plants

Cultural Dimensions

Documentation External

Adaptation

Internal

Integration

Reality and

truth

Time and

space

Human

nature,

activity, and

relationship

Audit reports Not covered Covered Covered Not covered Not covered

Food safety

scorecard

Covered Not covered Covered Not covered Not covered

Performance

minutes

Covered Covered Not covered Not covered Covered

These results suggest that coverage of cultural dimensions in performance standard

documentation is individually not good. Each document covers two to three dimensions and for

the documents to be considered part of a food safety culture measurement system these must be

analyzed as a collection of evidence and supplemented with tools to cover the time and space

and human nature, activity, and relationship dimensions.


46

Plant scoring

Based on the analysis of all three performance standard documents, a scoring system was

developed to quantify food safety culture based on these standards. Detailed findings by plant

were captured (Appendix B) and scored to rate each plant’s performance and calculate a total

score (Table 2-8). The audit report scoring was based on the plant’s ability to maintain (score of

3), increase (score of 1), or decrease (score of 5) number of non-conformances for both audits. A

plant could receive maximum score of 10 from the audit reports. The food safety scorecard

scoring was based on the plant’s ability to meet (score of 3), not-meet (score of 1), or exceed

(score of 5) the company standard. A plant could receive maximum score of 20 from the food

safety scorecard. The performance minutes were rated for plant’s actions, management

engagement, and group involvement and scored 1, 3, or 5 depending on the occurrence of

answers to the questions mentioned earlier. A plant could receive maximum score of 23 from the

performance minutes. Total score by plant was 53 and the total score for each plant was

achieved by adding the three individual scores; audit reports, food safety scorecard, and

performance minutes. .


47

Table 2-8: Plant score based on performance standard documentation

Performance standard documents

Plant Audit reports Food safety

scorecard

Performance

minutes

Total score (% of

total)

1 10 16 10 36 (62%)

2 10 16 4 30 (52%)

3 10 14 12 36 (62%)

4 6 16 14 36 (62%)

5 8 14 8 30 (52%)

6 10 10 8 28 (48%)

7 8 18 8 34 (59%)

8 4 14 12 30 (52%)

Table legend: Food safety culture score by plant for each standard document. Content of

each document was scored 1, 3, or 5 depending on the degree of meeting preset criteria relevant

to food safety culture. Each plant could achieve total 53 scores and a percentage achieved

calculated to quantify each plants food safety culture.

These results suggest that all plants did not achieve the maximum score. Plants 1, 3, and

4 came closest with an average score of 36 or 62% of the possible maximum score. The


48

remaining five plants; plants 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all scored less than the average score of 34 or 59%

of maximum score. All plants had the lowest scores in the area of sanitation performance (8 of

possible 53 total score), HACCP team engagement (8 of possible 53 total score), and Internal

audit team engagement (10 of possible 53 total score). From these results it can be concluded

that, documented performance relative to standard, is at best average across most of the

performance standards.


49

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to find answers to the questions: what characterizes

food safety culture? In addition, how can food safety culture be measured? This chapter

investigated the application of food safety performance standards and supporting documentation

as a means of measuring food safety culture. The results show that such standards and

documentation can be part of a food safety culture measurement system but cannot act as the

complete measurement system on their own. It was shown that three of five organizational

culture dimensions (external adaptation, internal integration, and reality and truth) found

coverage in two of the three document sets and two of five dimensions (time and space; human

nature, activity, and relationships) found no or very little coverage in any document analyzed.

A scoring system was developed based on the performance standard documentation to

quantify the strengths of the individual plant’s food safety culture. Although a difference was

detected between the eight plants, no plant was found to maximize its potential scoring and the

strength of any plant’s food safety culture, measured as percentage of maximum score, ranged

between 48% to 62% . The scoring system was valuable as an input to a food safety culture

measurement system but limited by coverage of organizational culture dimensions in the three

performance standard documents to stand alone as a complete measurement system.

The audit report analysis placed an emphasis on individual roles and provided some

indication of a plant’s approach to continuous improvement. Little to no evidence was found to

support any other cultural dimensions and characteristics. The food safety scorecard analysis

showed evidence of how the plant’s judged success, quantified training, and indicated what the


50

company had decided to measure and judge its success. The performance minutes covered the

most cultural dimensions with evidence of the plants focus on resolving deviations from the

standard. These gave an indication of involvement from management (i.e. plant manager), and

the extent to which groups were referred to or involved in the performance meetings. Again,

none of the documented evidence was, by itself, a measure of food safety culture but important

characteristics were covered in great depth (e.g., measures, how to judge success, and data

needs).

In comparison to existing literature, measuring food safety culture solely through

performance standards would not provide enough detail to understand and improve food safety

culture in totality. Performance standards lack a measure of human relationships (Clayton,

Griffith, Price, & Peters, 2002; Nickell & Hinsz, 2011b). In contrast to these studies,

performance standards are a useful component of a food safety culture measurement system

through their coverage of external adaptation, internal integration and reality and truth and it

would give an incomplete picture to leave an evaluation of these findings out of any method to

measure food safety culture.

Limitations of the study were found in the partial coverage of the organizational culture

dimensions and characteristics. The measure cannot be seen as a complete measure of food

safety culture but must be regarded as an important piece of the integrated interdisciplinary

measure of food safety culture.

In summary, the work revealed that performance standards and documentation can be

part of a food safety culture measurement system but cannot act as the complete and only


51

measurement system. Audit reports, food safety scorecard, and performance minutes can, when

combined, cover parts of three organizational culture dimensions. A plant specific scoring

system was developed and this cannot only be used to measure the strength of the individual

plant’s food safety culture but also provide direction for where improvement efforts are best

prioritized. As with the performance standard documents, the plant scoring cannot stand on its

own as a measure of food safety culture and must be combined with a social cognitive measure

to include the dimension of human nature. It is suggested that further work needs to becompleted

to develop a method for measuring the human nature of food safety culture by leveraging work

already completed in this area. Further, it is suggested that a food safety maturity model be

developed to provide food manufacturers with a complete tool for measuring the current state of

their food safety culture and develop a food safety culture road-map specific to its organizational

needs.


52

Chapter 3 Food Safety Maturity Model

Introduction

Maturity models and social cognitive models were identified in the literature review as a

possible way of measuring food safety culture and both of these methods were explored to seek

answers to the overall research questions posed by this work. Approval was given from the

Research Ethics Board at the University of Guelph to collect data involving humans.

Theories and perspectives

Through the literature review, it was evident that to understand what food safety culture

is it is necessary to understand the interlinking of three theoretical perspectives: organizational

culture, food science and social cognitive science. Organizational culture can be considered

different from other cultural definitions (e.g., geographical, national culture) and consists of

generic attributes such as artifacts, espoused values, beliefs, and ways to characterize culture

regardless of the area, function or discipline. The perspective from food science brings food-

specific considerations, such as working environments, and how to measure and evaluate these.

Food science searches for answers to questions related to the definition and quantitation of risks

associated with a given product and process, introducing risk management concepts, such as

HACCP, to evaluate how an organization manages its long term and daily decisions to ensure the

safety of their products. The third perspective from social cognitive science brings methods to

define, measure, and predict human behaviours. Methods from social cognitive science can be


53

applied to specifically measure an organization’s intent to perform behaviours specifically within

the scope of its own rules and values. For example, a manufacturer is guided by a set of values,

one may be, for example, dare to be transparent. This value could be translated into a behaviour

such as this: “Today I told a new colleague that he missed sanitizing his hands after washing and

helped him understand why this is important to the safety of our food.”

Cultural dimensions

Five dimensions of culture were chosen as the theoretical framework to organize the

various theoretical perspectives, food safety capability areas, and food safety culture measures.

The cultural dimensions defined by Schein (2009) were used to characterize culture and have

been applied extensively in research and practical culture studies (Table 1-2). It is important to

note that a dimension contains many characteristics. These attributes guided the literature review

in determining where studies have already been completed and where gaps still exist.

Method

Two methods were applied to develop the food safety maturity model and the behaviour-

based scale. An industry panel was engaged to assist in the development of the content of the

model and a social scientist to assist in breaking down the individual components of the model to

pinpoint behaviours.

Capability areas

The capability areas, and the subsequent food safety maturity model, were developed

with a panel of industry experts: Dr. John Butts, Raul Fajardo, Martha Gonzalez, Holly Mockus,

Sara Mortimore, Dr. Payton Pruett, and John Weisgerber. The experience of leaders in food


54

manufacturing was critical to capture as no reference was found to an existing food safety

maturity model. The individual expert was chosen based on the person’s demonstrated

knowledge, experience, and leadership as evident in their biographies (Appendix C). A seven-

member panel was struck to meet quarterly during the development phase of the maturity model.

The purpose of a capability area is to translate a generic cultural dimension into areas of specific

importance to food manufacturers. As such, the capability area links a generic cultural attribute,

e.g., training, as part of the cultural dimension reality and truth to food manufacturing specific

language and priorities, such as performance of a manufacturer’s people system, which also

includes training (Table 3-1).


55

Table 3-1: Mapping theoretical perspective to cultural dimensions and capability areas

Theoretical perspective Culture dimensions Capability areas

Organizational culture External adaptation Perceived value

Internal integration People systems

Social cognitive science Human nature, activity, and

relationship

People systems

Human nature, activity, and

relationship

Process thinking

Food science Reality and truth Technology enabled

Reality and truth Tools and infrastructure

The five capability areas represent the core of the food safety culture measurement

system and the capability areas were all defined individually on a scale of maturity in the food

safety maturity model. The Perceived value describes the extent to which food safety is seen as

only a regulatory must (stage 1) or as critical to business performance (stage 5). People systems

describes if an organization is task-based with signs of misinterpreted accountabilities (stage 1)

or responsibilities or if it sets accountability in behaviour-based working groups (stage 5).

Process thinking describes how problems are solved as independent tasks (stage 1) or problem

solving is seen as an iterative process built on critical thinking and data (stage 5). Technology


56

enabled describes how the organization turns data into information; manual and independent

(stage 1) compared to automatically and as part of a company-wide information system (stage 5).

Tools and infrastructure can be illustrated by whether an employee needs to walk far to a sink

(stage 1) or sinks are conveniently located (stage 5). These descriptors are similar to those

developed by Greenstreet Berman Ltd. and adopted in the Food Standards Agency Food Safety

Toolbox (Wright & Leach, 2013).

The pinpointed behaviours and the behaviour-based scale

Behaviours were defined based on the descriptors in each maturity stage and capability

area with the guidance of social scientist, Deirdre Conway. The list was discussed with

stakeholders in the participating company to pinpoint and select those behaviours believed to

have the most impact on the descriptor in the maturity model. All pinpointed behaviours were

defined at two stages of maturity; doubt and internalized.

The objective of the scale was to collect data related to the overall group segments (plant,

function, and role). The scale was constructed as a self-assessment tool and each participant was

asked to rate their own behaviour against a series of questions and statements. Answers were

grouped into demographic attributes and the behaviour predicting variables; attitude, perceived

control, social norm and past behaviour and intention for each of the capability areas.

Each question in the scale was structured the same way for each variable and for each

pinpointed behaviour. For example, a question regarding the variable attitude would read “My

behaviour to always design my own tools such as spreadsheets and forms to gather food safety

data is…” and the participant was asked to rate how strongly this reflected the respondents


57

attitude on a scale from 1 (beneficial) to 5 (harmful). Every question related to the variable

attitude was structured this way and rated on similar scales (Table 3-2).


58

Table 3-2: Question design by variable

Variable Standard start Example pinpointed behaviour

Attitude My behaviour to … …always design my own tools e.g.

spreadsheet to gather food safety

data…

Perceived

Control

I am confident that for the

next three months I will …

…always design my own tools e.g.


data

Social Norm Most people, outside –and

at work, whose opinion I

value would approve of …



data

Past Behaviour I have in the past three

months …



data

Behavioural

Intent

I intend to … …always design my own tools e.g.


data


59

The responses from survey participants were analyzed in data were imported into Minitab

10 (Minitab Inc. State College, PA) using an anonymised numbering convention. Minitab 10 is a

general-purpose statistical software package designed as a primary tool for analyzing research

data. The examination of the data was conducted using descriptive statistical principles and

statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA) to explore differences between levels, roles, plants, and maturity

stages.

Scale administration.

The data were collected in a Canadian food manufacturing company from February to

April 2014. The company employed approximately 19,000 employees across 48 plants at the

time of data collection and produced meat and meals. The scale (Appendix E) was constructed to

gather data for all capability areas in the food safety maturity model. The scale was administered

through an online survey tool and all responses were anonymous and each respondent was

rewarded with a $5 product voucher for their participation. Employees in supervisory roles and

leadership positions (n=1,030) within the two functions food safety and quality and

manufacturing were given the opportunity to participate. Survey responses were received from

219 employees (21.3% response rate).


60

Results

The food Safety maturity model.

The food safety maturity model (Table 3-3) was developed based on learnings from the

literature review and input from the industry expert council. There are five stages of maturity in

the model. Stage 1 is Doubt and is described by questions such as “Who messed up?” and “Food

safety – QA does that?” Stage 2 is React to and described by questions and situations such as

“How much time will it take?” and “We are good at fire-fighting and reward it.” Stage 3 is Know

of and is described by statements such as “I know it is important but I can fix only one problem

at a time.” Stage 4 is Predict and described by statements such as “Here we plan and execute

with knowledge, data and patience.” Stage 5 is Internalize and described by situations such as

“Food safety is integrated into sustaining and growing our business.”

Each intersection of a stage (e.g., doubt) and a capability area (e.g., perceived value) was

defined by completing the sentence “We [STAGE] food safety and our [CAPABILITY AREA]

are described by X.” For example, in the case of doubt the perceived value X would become

“completing tasks because regulations makes us.” Each definition was discussed and the industry

expert panel reached a consensus on the most important one or two definitions and did not

produce a comprehensive list of definitions, as this was thought to be of little value when

defining a measurement system.


61

Table 3-3: Food Safety Maturity Model

Stage name Stage 1

Doubt

Stage 2

React to

Stage 3

Know of

Stage 4

Predict

Stage 5

Internalize

Capability Area

Perceived Value

Tasks are completed

because regulatory

agents tell us to.

Little to no investment in

systems (people or

processes) to prevent food

safety firefighting.

Issues are solved one at a

time to the root of the

issue because we know it

protects our business.

Preventing issues from

occurring based on past

history and leading

indicators.

We consider food safety

an avenue to continuous

improvement.

Performance data is not

collected and reported

regularly to all

stakeholders.

Little understanding of true

food safety performance.

Strong, data-based

understanding of food

safety performance.

People System

Completing tasks by top-

down "tell" without

evidence of individual

Responsibility for problems

is established as problems

are discovered and solved

Evidence of

understanding the need

for food safety systems.

Defining and proving

antecedents for improving

processes through

Strategic directions

across the organization

and its functions to


62

Stage name Stage 1

Doubt

Stage 2

React to

Stage 3

Know of

Stage 4

Predict

Stage 5

Internalize

Capability Area

responsibility and

understanding for why

tasks are important.

.

mostly by use of negative

consequences.

knowledge and data.

include food safety as a

key business enabler

with clear defined

accountability and

responsibility for food

safety performance.

People Systems Tasks being completed

out of fear for negative

consequences.

Antecedents being invented

as problems are solved and

seldom incorporated in

systems after the fact.

Improvements are made

one issue at a time with

clear responsibility

identified and

communicated.

Responsibilities and

accountabilities are

discussed and carefully

decided upon.

Pinpointed behaviours

and consequences are

defined and continuously

reinforced.

Top management

approve the accuracy of

Consequences are mostly

managed when an error

Consequences - positive

and negative - are defined


63

Stage name Stage 1

Doubt

Stage 2

React to

Stage 3

Know of

Stage 4

Predict

Stage 5

Internalize

Capability Area

food safety information needs correction and

seldom through pre-

planned consequences.

and managed proactively.

Process Thinking Unstructured problem

solving to remove the

immediate pain.

Continuous improvement

with emphasis on

checking/inspecting and

expectation of 100%

perfect solutions from the

start.

Structured problem

solving with a high risk

of over analyzing

problems and continuous

improvement

opportunities.

Continuous improvement

with emphasis on study

not checking or

inspecting .It is generally

accepted that

improvements are

iterative.

Risks are identified

through horizon scanning

and continuous

improvement as part of

the food safety system.


64

Stage name Stage 1

Doubt

Stage 2

React to

Stage 3

Know of

Stage 4

Predict

Stage 5

Internalize

Capability Area

Technology

Enabler

Little to no technology

adopted and few people

realize this to be an

issue.

Responsibility left to the

individual to identify data

needed and a high degree

of reliance on the

individual to derive

information from the data.

Standard technology is

adopted and provided to

the individual user in a

standardized way.

Data is collected in a

consistent and accurate

manner to inform the

continuous improvement

activities.

Data is used in an

integrated way to

automate workflows,

provide tools to improve

food safety and make the

enterprise quick to adapt.

Data driven information

is used sporadically to

solve problems and

design preventive actions.


65

Stage name Stage 1

Doubt

Stage 2

React to

Stage 3

Know of

Stage 4

Predict

Stage 5

Internalize

Capability Area

Tools &

Infrastructure

Necessary tools are not

available to everybody.

Need for tools or

infrastructure changes

when problems arise that

require immediate solves.

Investing readily in the

right tools and

infrastructure when

solving a problem

requires it.

Food safety tools and

infrastructures are in place

and continuously

improved for ease of use

and cost of operation.

Investment in tools and

infrastructure is

evaluated at part with

other business

investments and

objectively invested in.

MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.

66

Pinpointed behaviours.

Each role and function had a minimum of 25 pinpointed behaviours that were used in the

self-assessment scale to determine maturity level (Table 3-4). As such, a Food Safety and

Quality supervisor might associate with the following behaviour “I rarely have time to identify

root cause of problems and mostly find myself firefighting.” This behaviour is the pinpointed

behaviour for the process thinking capability area when the supervisor finds her or himself at the

maturity stage of doubt. If the supervisor found her or himself in the maturity stage of

internalized within the process thinking capability area the behaviour “I collect, analyze and

report food safety data daily to plant staff to bring transparency to emerging challenges” might

resonate more.

Each pinpointed behaviour was designed to include four components: action, target,

context and timing for consistency and specificity in definition of each of the behaviours

(Fishbein & Ajzen, 2009). For example, “I always design my own tools such as spreadsheets and

forms to gather food safety data,” which was a pinpointed behaviour for the Food Safety

supervisors in a maturity stage of doubt and within the capability area technology enabled.

The list of pinpointed behaviours cannot be considered an exhaustive list of behaviours

important to the individual role but were suggested as the most critical behaviours in each

maturity stage and capability area.

It was hypothesized that pinpointed behaviours were different for the two functional

areas: manufacturing and food safety. It was also hypothesised that pinpointed behaviours


67

differed between the four roles: supervisor, leader, functional leader and executive. Pinpointed

behaviours were defined for the two end-point maturity stages doubt and internalized (Tables 3-4

and 3-5). The complete set of pinpointed behaviours by function, role, and maturity stage can be

found in Appendix D.


68

Table 3-4: Sample pinpointed behaviours by function (food safety and quality), role and competency

areas in the maturity stages of doubt.

Capability

area

Supervisor

(Execute)

Leader

(Tactic)

Functional Leader

(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

People System

(DOUBT)

I immediately remove

food safety issues by

myself to avoid

negative consequences

for myself and my

team.

I always have to learn

how to solve food

safety problems as

they happen.

I always ask others

before taking action to

solve a food safety

problem.

I provide my direct

reports with direction

to remove food safety

problems immediately

to avoid negative

consequences.

I plan improvements

of my own or my

team’s knowledge,

skills or ability in

food safety as needs

arise.

I always direct my

team(s) not to take

action to solve a food

safety problems

without asking

I always have to

manage negative

consequences when a

food safety problem

occurs.

I check if my teams

have the needed food

safety knowledge,

skills or ability on an

ad-hoc basis.

I direct leaders to

always ask somebody

before solving a food

safety problem.

I make sure

somebody is

managing negative

consequences every

time a food safety

problem occurs.

I seldom get involved

in discussions

regarding food safety

knowledge, skills or

ability needs.

I hold leaders

accountable for

consulting wiht FSQ

experts before taking

action on food safety.


69

others .

Table 3-5: Pinpointed behaviours by function (food safety and quality), role and competency areas in

the maturity stages of internalized.


70

Capability area Supervisor

(Execute)

Leader

(Tactic)

Functional Leader

(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

People System

(INTERNALIZED)

I take action daily to

let anybody know

when they go over

and beyond for food

safety.

I only act as coach

whenever the plant

teams solve food

safety issues.

I always correct food

safety behaviours

immediately when I

see an opportunity.


provide positive

feedback when

others take action to

remove perceived

food safety risks.

I take daily action to

congratulate plant

teams when they

solve food safety

problems with

minimal

involvement from

FSQ.

I minimum weekly

check in with my

supervisor(s) or

others to ensure they

have the necessary

authority to make


complement my

peers in other

functions of their

demonstrated food

safety ownership.

I minimum weekly

openly congratulates

a plant manager on

his/her good business

decision(s) made for

food safety.

I check in with teams

or peers minimum

weekly to ensure

they have the

authority to make

business decision for

food safety.

I minimum monthly

check in with

functional - and

business leaders to

ensure food safety is

built into their

business plans.

I systemically and

openly celebrate

individual leaders

for their food safety

competency and

leadership.

I systemically, once

a quarter, review

summary of

behaviours requiring

celebration or

correction.


71

business decisions

for food safety.

Overall company behaviour-based maturity.

The overall company behaviour-based maturity is in maturity stages react to and know of.

The capability areas perceived value and tools & infrastructure scored the highest average scores

of 3.1 in both areas. The capability areas people systems and process thinking scored within the

maturity stage of react to just ahead of the capability area technology enabler also within the

maturity stage of react to. Mean maturity score for each capability area and range (minimum and

maximum average by plant) were plotted on the maturity model (Table 3-6).


72

Stage name

(Identifier)

Capability Area

(Identifier)0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9

Perceived Value l l

People System l l l

Process Thinking l l l

Technology

Enablerl l l

Tools &

Infrastructurel l

Stage 1

Doubt

Stage 2

React to

Stage 3

Know of

Stage 4

Predict

Stage 5

Internalize

Table 3-6: Overall company behaviour-based maturity


73

The results would indicate that the organization’s mean maturity lies in the stages react to

and know of. Overall, no significant difference (p = 0.003) was found between maturity of the

food safety and quality function (N=306) and the manufacturing function (N=724). A difference

was found for one of the five capability areas namely technology enabled with the manufacturing

function being more mature than the food safety and quality function. The data collected by role,

supervisory (N = 890), leader (N = 223), and functional leader (N = 98), showed a significant (p

= 0.000) difference in overall maturity; ranking leaders highest on the maturity scale (mean =

2.096), followed by functional leader (mean = 2.080), and lastly supervisors (mean = 1.983).

Plant behaviour-based maturity.

A maturity model was developed for each of the eight plants (Appendix E) and the

difference between the plant’s overall maturity rating was evaluated using a one-way ANOVA

analysis. It was determined that there was a statistically significant difference between one or

more of the plants (n = 6,735, p value = 0.000).

The mean maturity score was calculated for each capability area and the overall maturity

of the plant. Percentage of maximum score (5) for each plant’s overall maturity was calculated as

a measure of the individual plant’s food safety culture strength (Table 3-7).


74

Table 3-7: Mean maturity score by plant, capability area and total

Capability Area

Plant Perceived

value

People

systems

Process

thinking

Technology

enabler

Tools

and

infra-

structure

Mean

score (%

of total)

1 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.7 3.1 2.9 (58%)

2 2.9 2.4 2.6 2.4 3.3 2.7 (54%)

3 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.3 3.0 2.7 (53%)

4 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.6 3.0 2.7 (54%)

5 2.9 2.1 2.5 1.8 2.7 2.4 (48%)

6 3.3 2.7 3.0 2.5 3.2 2.9 (58%)

7 3.3 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.0 (60%)

8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.7 (53%)

Table legend: Food safety culture score by plant for each capability area. Each capability

area could average scores between 1 and 5 depending on the participants responds to each

capability area question. Maximum maturity level equals a score of 5 indicating a internalized


75

state of maturity and minimum score of 1 indicating a doubt state of maturity. Average for each

plant was calculated and a percentage achieved calculated to quantify strength of each plants

food safety culture.

The results would indicate that the average maturity of all plants are in the stages react to

and know of. Three plants (1, 6, and 7) had the strongest food safety culture with scores between

58% and 60% and ranging from 2.9 - 3.0 in average maturity score. Extrapolating from these

scores and the food safety maturity model, the culture in these plants can be described as one

where food safety issues are solved one at a time and a solid understanding of food safety

performance through data acquisition and analysis exists. There is a clear understanding of

responsibility and consequences are mostly managed when a problem occurs. These plants make

good use of data but can over analyze them. Technology has been adopted to help manage food

safety systems but it is unlikely that these plants uses their data to prevent problems from

occurring. Investments in tools and infrastructure are made when required to solve a problem.

The plant with the lowest score (Plant #5) scored 48% and its maturity scored placed it

in the react to stage. The culture in this plant can be described as one where there is little to no

investment in food safety and the perceived value of such an investment is not clear.

Responsibility for problems is assigned as they occur and antecedents (e.g., training, job

descriptions, performance measures) are developed in reaction to food safety problems.

Problems are solved as they arise and there is little evidence of systematic continuous

improvement. In this plant the responsibility to decide what data to collect is placed on the


76

individual and not the collective group and needs for investment in tools and infrastructure

changes as new problems arise.


77

Discussion

The purpose of this research is to investigate existing literature for measures of food

safety culture and meet two objectives. The primary objective of the current study was to define

characteristics to assess food safety culture in food manufacturing. A second objective was to

translate these characteristics into capabilities relevant to food manufacturers as measures to

assess and improve food safety culture. The result was, in this context, successful and it was

shown that a maturity model approach incorporated with a behaviour-based scale could be used

to characterize food safety culture and describe a roadmap for any given plant for maturing its

food safety culture. A detailed measurement tool was developed to assess overall food safety

culture in a Canadian food manufacturing company.

The overall food safety culture was measured on a scale based on the reasoned action

model and food safety specific maturity stages. As a result, the food safety culture in plants of

this specific company ranges between maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3 know of.

The organization finds itself in a stage of maturity where food safety is accepted as an important

part of business, decisions are increasingly made based on science and data, training is

increasingly standardized, and investment in infrastructure and tools are readily available as

needs arise. However, in certain plants, there is also a tendency to not invest in systems

(protocols or technology), that responsibilities for problems are assigned as problems arise, and

on occasions, the company reacts to problems more than prevents them.


78

When ranking the eight plants by maturity score and strength of their food safety culture

these all fell into the same maturity stages as the overall company and the strongest food safety

culture was measured at 60% (Plant 7) with the weakest at 48% (Plant 5). When the ability of

plants to meet food safety performance standards was assessed, Plant 7 was in the top half and

Plant 5 in the bottom half, which suggests that the two measures are related. There is no

correlation between the two strength measures (R-squared = 0.040) which is likely due to the

degree of clustering of the data around the 49% to 61% scores (Figure 3-1).

Figure 3-1: Maturity and Performance standard strength by plant

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Str

eng

th

Plant

Maturity strength

Performance standard strength


79

Figure legend: Food safety culture measures by plant. Strength of each measure;

performance standards and maturity was calculated by plant as percentage achieved of total

available score; performance standard max score was 53 (100%) and maturity max score 50

(100%).

Table 3-8: Plant ranking by performance standard score and maturity score

Plant

Performance

standard

Total score

(% of total)

Plant

Maturity score

Mean score

(% of total)

1 36 (62%) 7 3.0 (60%)

3 36 (62%) 1 2.9 (58%)

4 36 (62%) 6 2.9 (58%)

7 34 (59%) 2 2.7 (54%)

2 30 (52%) 4 2.7 (54%)

5 30 (52%) 3 2.7 (53%)

8 30 (52%) 8 2.7 (53%)

6 28 (48%) 5 2.4 (48%)

Table legend: Food safety culture measures by plant. Strength of each measure;

performance standards and maturity was calculated by plant as percentage achieved of total


80

available score; performance standard max score was 53 (100%) and maturity max score 50

(100%).

The overall company measures were segmented by function (food safety and quality and

Manufacturing) and role (Functional leader, Leader, and Supervisor). The role segmentation is

similar to that proposed by Griffith et al. (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010a). The purpose was

to measure maturity for each function and test for differences. This can help a company target

interventions with function-specific messages and senders should there be a difference.

In this specific case there was no difference in maturity between functions – food safety

and quality compared to manufacturing - and it would not be valuable for this company to

differentiate interventions as both functions are at the same food safety maturity level.

The purpose of the role segmentation was to measure maturity across the different formal

working groups and test if any group was more or less mature in their food safety sub-culture

than others. In this specific case a difference was detected. Both functional leaders and leaders

rated the level of food safety maturity significantly higher than the ratings provided by

supervisors. This is very useful as the company can use this to re-evaluate its current food safety

interventions and decide if they are adequate for enhancing the rated maturity across the

supervisory group. This difference could infer that supervisors are less mature or actually

assessing the situation as it truly is. This should be explored in future research as an important

measure of a particular group’s food safety culture.


81

The difference between roles is not surprising given the many references from

researchers of organizational culture and food safety culture to the importance of the group (Ball,

Wilcock, & Aung, 2009; Hinsz, Nickell, & Park, 2007). As such, the analysis would indicate that

the focus of this particular company on functional leaders and leaders is different to supervisors

and this represents a significant opportunity for improving food safety culture within each of the

eight plants. Each role is represented in all of the plants e.g., plant manager, quality supervisor,

and maintenance lead hand and by closing the gaps between roles a plant could improve its

overall food safety culture by bringing behaviours of different roles closer and potentially make

the strength of the plants food safety culture stronger and more sustainable.

The limitation with this research resides in the behaviour-based scale. The questionnaire

was long (96 questions) and it is believed to have influenced the final response rate. Measuring

food safety culture is a complicated matter and further research is suggested to modify the survey

questions based on the findings of this research. The expert panel was not selected at random but

built on knowledge and experience in the individual’s resume. This too could be perceived as a

limitation of the research.

This research suggests that combining a food safety maturity model with a self-

assessment, behaviour-based scale does provide factual answers for one meat processing

company, which can be applied to other food manufacturing facilities to characterize and

measure food safety culture. It brings a method to a question asked by many “what is food safety

culture?” and how to measure food safety culture that can influence a food manufacturing


82

company’s intervention effort and priorities on its chosen maturity path. Is is suggested that

further data analysis is completed of questions to determine the basic questions for measuring

foods safety culture through a responds surface methodology with a multivariate responds.


83

Chapter 4 Discussion and Conclusions

The purpose of this research was to search for ways to characterize and measure food

safety culture. The results suggest that some generic characteristic found in organization culture

theory can be applied to food safety. Two methods were identified to measure food safety

culture; a performance standard scoring system and a behaviour-based food safety maturity

model.

The food safety maturity model was built on the experience from food safety industry

expert panel and learnings from working maturity models in other disciplines (e.g., quality and

occupational health and safety). The overall food safety culture was measured using a behaviour-

based scale derived from the reasoned action model and food safety specific maturity stages. As

a result, the food safety culture for plants in one manufacturing company ranges between

maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3 know of. The food safety maturity model describes

each maturity stage and qualitative descriptions of the manufacturing company can be drawn. As

such, the organization finds itself in a stage of maturity where food safety is accepted as an

important part of business, decisions are increasingly made based on science and data, training is

increasingly standardized, and investment in infrastructure and tools are readily available as

needs arise. There is also a tendency to not invest in systems (protocols or technology), that

responsibilities for problems are assigned as problems arise, and on occasions, the company

reacts to problems more than prevents them. Knowing its position the company can now make

informed decisions on where means (financial and resources) all allocated.


84

The performance standards were identified as a potential part of a measurement system in

the literature review but it was also clearly stated that such a system would not cover all culture

characteristics. Although a difference was detected between the eight plants, no plant was found

with a maximum potential score and the strength of any plant’s food safety culture, measured as

percentage of maximum score, ranged between 48% to 62%. The scoring system is found

valuable as an input to a food safety culture measurement system but limited by coverage of

organizational culture dimensions in the three performance standard documents to stand alone as

a complete measurement system.

In comparing the plant scores for each measurement system there does appear to be some

correlation between the performance standard and maturity scores. As such, six of eight plants

had less than 8%-points difference in the two scores and the other two had higher than 9%-points

difference. This suggests that in this specific context a relationship does exist and that the two

scores can be used to guide the individual plant food safety team on where to priorities efforts for

improvement.

The measurement system is unique in that it combines food safety performance standard

scoring with behaviour-based maturity. Performance scoring systems such as the Baldridge

award follow a similar model but in contrast to this research the Baldridge model does not take

specific food safety requirements or situations into account. Behaviour-based studies have

proved the applicability of social cognitive models to assess food safety (Ball, Wilcock, & Aung,

2009; Nickell & Hinsz, 2011b) and these studies clearly indicate the opportunity for the use of


85

generic models in food safety. Maturity models are widely used in organizations to improve

processes and cultures (Crosby, 1972; Goonan, Muzikowski, & Stoltz, 2009), however, no model

has been developed specifically for food safety. The measurement system developed in this

research combines all of these learnings into one food safety culture measurement system. This

adds to our current knowledge of food safety culture by providing a quantifiable method for

evaluating a food manufacturer’s food safety culture.

Given the lack of a control group or other validation activities it cannot be precluded that

the performance scoring and self-assessment score covers all characteristics of food safety

culture. The research could be strengthened through validation activities such as focus group

interviews at a participating plant. The research was conducted within one food manufacturing

organization and without the opportunity to compare with other organizations. It is difficult to

say if the measurement system is robust enough to detect differences caused by the individual

organization, their geographical location, and the role they play in the global food chain (e.g.,

grower versus manufacturer versus retailer). It is recommended that research be carried out to

validate the measurement system in other organizations across the food chain and test the

model’s applicability to assess food safety culture across multiple organizations in the food chain.

The measurement system developed in this research can be used as a practical tool for

manufacturers to gain visibility as to the strength of their food safety culture and allocate

resources in those areas that need it the most in this changing environment.


86

References

Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology &

Health, 26(9), 1113-1127. doi:10.1080/08870446.2011.613995

Arendt, S. W., Paez, P., & Strohbehn, C. (2013). Food safety practices and managers'

perceptions: A qualitative study in hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, 25(1), 124-139. doi:10.1108/09596111311290255

Ball, B., Wilcock, A., & Aung, M. (2009). Factors influencing workers to follow food safety

management systems in meat plants in ontario, canada. International Journal of

Environmental Health Research, 19(3), 201-218. doi:10.1080/09603120802527646

Chapman, B., Eversley, T., Fillion, K., MacLaurin, T., & Powell, D. (2010). Assessment of food

safety practices of food service food handlers (risk assessment data): Testing a

communication intervention (evaluation of tools). . Journal of Food Protection, 73(6),

1101-7.,

Clayton, D. A., & Griffith, C. J. (2004). Observation of food safety practices in catering using

notational analysis. British Food Journal, 106(3), 211-227.

doi:10.1108/00070700410528790


87

Clayton, D. A., & Griffith, C. J. (2008). Efficacy of an extended theory of planned behaviour

model for predicting caterers' hand hygiene practices. International Journal of

Environmental Health Research, 18(2), 83-98. doi:10.1080/09603120701358424

Clayton, D. A., Griffith, C. J., Price, P., & Peters, A. C. (2002). Food handlers' beliefs and self-

reported practices. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 12(1), 25-39.

doi:10.1080/09603120120110031

Crosby, P. B. (1972). Quality is free McGraw-Hill.

Edwards, Z. M., Takeuchi, M. T., Hillers, V. N., McCurdy, S. M., & Edlefsen, M. (2006). Use of

behavioral change theories in development of educational materials to promote food

thermometer use. Food Protection Trends., 26(2), 82-88.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2009). Predicting and changing behavior : The reasoned action

approach. London, GBR: Psychology Press.

Goonan, K. J., Muzikowski, J. A., & Stoltz, P. K. (2009). Journey to excellence: How baldridge

health care leaders succeed. Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality, Quality Press.

Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. (2010a). The assessment of food safety culture.

British Food Journal, 112(4), 439-456. doi:10.1108/00070701011034448


88

Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. A. (2010b). Food safety culture: The evolution of

an emerging risk factor? British Food Journal, 112(4), 426-438.

doi:10.1108/00070701011034439

Griffith, C. J. (2010). Do businesses get the food poisoning they deserve? British Food Journal,

112(4), 416-425. doi:10.1108/00070701011034420

Hanacek, A. (2010). SCIENCE + CULTURE = SAFETY. National Provisioner, 224(4), 20-

22,24,26,28-31.

Hinsz, V. B., Nickell, G. S., & Park, E. S. (2007). The role of work habits in the motivation of

food safety behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(2), 105-114.

doi:10.1037/1076-898X.13.2.105

Hirschhorn, L. (1990, c1988). The workplace within : Psychodynamics of organizational life 1st

MIT Press paperback ed.

Jespersen, L., & Huffman, R. (2014). <br />Building food safety into the company culture: A

look at maple leaf foods. Perspectives in Public Health, (May 8, 2014) doi:DOI:

10.1177/1757913914532620

Kwon, J., Ryu, D., & Zottarelli, L. K. (2007). Food-handling practices and operators' food safety

attitudes at faith-based louisiana organizations that provided hurricane evacuee shelters in

2005. Food Protection Trends., 27(2), 84-89.


89

MacAuslan, E. (2013). Developing food safety cultures – are small catering businesses being

neglected? Perspectives in Public Health, 133(6), 304-305. doi:10.1177/1757913913506643

Medeiros, L. C., Chen, G., Van Horn, J., Fralic, J., Hillers, V. "., & Kendall, P. (2006). Essential

food safety behaviors for older adults. Food Protection Trends, 26(8), 586-592.

Meyer, R. (2013). The positive impact of behavioral change on food safety and productivity

Mullan, B. A., Wong, C. L., & O'Moore, K. (2010). Predicting hygienic food handling

behaviour: Modelling the health action process approach. British Food Journal, 112(11),

1216-1229. doi:10.1108/00070701011088205

Nickell, G. S., & Hinsz, V. B. (2011a). Having a conscientious personality helps an

organizational climate of food safety predict food safety behavior. In Marion B. Walsch

(Ed.), Food supplies and food safety (pp. 189-198)

Nickell, G. S., & Hinsz, V. B. (2011b). Having a conscientious personality helps an

organizational climate of food safety predict food safety behaviour. Food Supplies and Food

Safety, , 189-198.

Pilling, V. K., Brannon, L. A., Shanklin, C. W., Roberts, K. R., Barrett, B. S., & Howells, A. D.

(2008). Food safety training requirements and food handlers' knowledge and behaviors.

Food Protection Trends., 28(3), 192-200.


90

Powell, D. A., Jacob, C. J., & Chapman, B. J. (2011). Enhancing food safety culture to reduce

rates of foodborne illness. Food Control, 22(6), 817-822.

doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.12.009

Robinson, J. S., & Heidolph, B. B. (2009). Food safety-A current perspective for stakeholders:

Creating a food safety culture through audits and best practice sharing. Cereal Foods World,

54(6), 248-252.

Sarter, G., & Sarter, S. (2012). Promoting a culture of food safety to improve hygiene in small

restaurants in madagascar Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.10.023

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: San Francisco :

Jossey-Bass.

Seward, S. (2012). Assessing the food safety culture of a manufacturing facility. Food

Technology, 66(1), 44.

Staskel, D. M., Briley, M. E., & Curtis, S. R. (2007). Food safety knowledge and behaviors of

cooks in texas childcare centers. Food Protection Trends., 27(2), 90-94.

Taylor, J. (2011). An exploration of food safety culture in a multi-cultural environment: Next

steps? Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(5), 455-466.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/10.1108/17554211111185836

http://dx.doi.org.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/10.1108/17554211111185836


91

Wendler, R. (2012). The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study.

Information and Software Technology, 54(12), 1317-1339. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2012.07.007

Wilcock, A., Ball, B., & Fajumo, A. (2011). Effective implementation of food safety initiatives:

Managers’, food safety coordinators’ and production workers’ perspectives. Food Control,

22(1), 27-33. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.06.005

Wright, M., & Leach, P. (2013, Achieving an effective food hygiene culture: The next step in

assuring excellence. International Food Hygiene, 24, 21-23.

Yiannas, F. (2009). In Frank Yiannas. (Ed.), Food safety culture creating a behavior-based food

safety management system / New York : Springer, c2009.


92

Appendix

Appendix A: Analysis of quantity, methods and sectors.

Quantity.

Thirty-two publications were published in the period 2002 to 2014 (YTD) with 69% of

literature published after 2008 (from total 10 publications until and including 2008 to 22 from

2009 to 2014 YTD) (figure 1).

Figure A1: Food safety culture publications by year

Applied methods.

Of all studies under review, 53% used quantitative research methods such as

questionnaires and surveys. Some findings, 22%, was not classified as research and no method


93

was assigned followed by 19% making use of empirical methods such as case studies and

literature reviews. Surprisingly only two studies applied a qualitative method and this was

interesting in a field that historically have been referred to as hard measure. Quantitative

measurement methods are the once most often used. (figure 2).

Figure A2: Food safety culture publications by research method

Sector analysis.

Majority of the publications are related to food service (42%) followed by literature in the

category of general (22%). General publications are content related to the broader food industry

and not sector specific. Fewer publications were specific to food manufactures (19%) and the

remaining was found to target the retail sector and consumers (figure 3). Majority of the

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Emperical LiteratureReview

n/a Qualitative Quantitative

Co

un

t o

f R

efe

ren

ces


94

publications were found in peer reviewed journals (75%) and the remaining in books and

magazines.

Figure A3: Food safety culture publications by sector


95

Appendix B: Plant Data

Table B-1: Plant scoring by performance standard documentation

Document Sub-measure Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Audit reports BRC audit non-

conformances

5 5 5 1 3 5 3 3

Audit reports Internal audit non-

conformances

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1

Food safety

scorecard

HACCP

Performance

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Food safety

scorecard

Sanitation

performance (ATP)

1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1

Food safety

scorecard

Sanitation

performance

(Visual inspection)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Food safety

scorecard

EMP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Food safety Training 5 1 5 5 5 1 5 5


96

Document Sub-measure Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

scorecard

Food safety

scorecard

Closed on time 3 3 1 3 1 1 5 1

Performance

minutes

Actions defined 5 1 5 5 1 3 3 5

Performance

minutes

Plant manager

engagement

3 1 5 5 5 3 3 5

Performance

minutes

Internal audit team 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

Performance

minutes

HACCP team 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total 36 30 36 36 30 28 34 30

Average 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.33 2.83 2.50


97

Appendix C: Biographies of Industry expert panelists

Dr. John Butts, Ph.D. Food Safety By Design LLC and Vice President – Research,

Land O’ Frost, Inc.

Land O’ Frost is a privately held company and is the 3rd largest sliced lunchmeat brand

in the US. Dr. Butts has been in the primary technical role for 40 years and continues full time

employment with Land O’ Frost. As part of his succession plan Food Safety By Design LLC

was founded and consulting services outside of LOF are ongoing with the full consent and

support of LOF.

In 2010 FoodSafetyByDesign, LLC. was founded to help producers of high risk products

learn how to prevent and manage food safety risks. Risk identification and management by

FoodSafetyByDesign incorporates root cause identification and development of preventative

methodology. Dr. Butts’ specialty is the incorporation of Food Safety Practices into company

culture. Preventative Controls have proven to be the most successful method to manage the risk

of environmental pathogens. Root cause identification using the Seek and Destroy Strategy

enables visualization of need. Interventions to manage high risk areas eliminate firefighting and

the solving of the same problem over and over again. The company culture next moves into the

preventative state and companies learn how to use data collected in their own facility to predict

and prevent product contamination.

In the early eighties LOF entered the shelf stable meal business with retort pouches. Dr.

Butts’ activities included:


98

Responsible for Product Development, Process Improvement, and Quality

Assurance.

Serving as a host and liaison for a technical exchange with a Japanese food

manufacturing company

Process control for the packaging of an enteric feeding solution

Commercialization of a retortable, peelable and microwavable entrée tray

Development of a proprietary sealing method to eliminate flange

contamination as a critical factor for a hermetically sealed tray

Dr. Butts also provided technical and management support to Frigorifico Canelones, the

largest beef processing plant in Uruguay, from 1991-2001. LOF owned and managed this

business during this period. Key achievements:

Implemented a HACCP program to qualify for export to the US, EU, and Japan

Implemented a USDA compliant pathogen intervention and control program

The further processing portion of the facility was designed and built to

operate in a Foot and Mouth infected area. Successfully obtained APHIS

approval for export to the US.

Trade Association Activities:


99

Founding member of Special Poultry Research Committee to obtain approval

of nitrite in poultry during the President Carter - Carol Tucker-Foreman

administration.

American Meat Institute (AMI)

Active member of the Scientific Affairs Committee (SAC) for over thirty five

years

Past Chairperson of the SAC

Meat Inspection Committee

Facility Design Task Force

AMI Listeria Intervention and Control Workshop team member, presentation

co-author and instructor.

AMI Board Member – Pork and Processed Meats Committee

Board Membership’s,

Member of the AMI Board of Directors

Editorial Advisory Board of Food Safety Magazine

Food Safety Advisory Committee Miniat Foods South Holland Ill


100

Dr. Butts is actively involved in pathogen reduction and control of pathogenic organisms

in cooked processed meat products, seafood, leafy greens and other RTE products .

From 1998-2000 he worked to develop practices and procedures to minimize and control

construction risk at an LOF plant undergoing multiple major high-risk construction projects

within the RTE area.

A focus has been on development of investigative tools enabling plants to identify and

control growth niches. The use of hurdle technology to minimize transfer to and within high risk

areas. These are now a part of the AMI Workshop.

Current work includes the application of scientific principles and quality management

technology to develop Sanitation Process Control Methods and Procedures. This includes

identification and control of critical factors coupled with the deployment of a real-time

monitoring and visual training program delivered by a ruggedized tablet computer during the

sanitation process.

Other related activities:

Developing and teaching environmental pathogen control technology, facility and

equipment design principles to allied trade groups, equipment manufactures and customers in the

industrial, food service and retail trade


101

Equipment design and pathogen control presentations given to our equipment suppliers

both domestically and in Germany to top management as well as the design engineers

responsible for the sanitary design of equipment used in the United States.

Worked with Ireland Sea Fisheries Board and Australian (NSW Food Authority & Food

Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)) to develop an Industry wide process for Listeria

control in further processed seafood and meat plants.

Awards:

Outstanding Food Science Award, Inaugural class recipient, Purdue University,

2005 Food Safety Leadership Award , NSF International presented at NRA national

convention

2006 Food Safety Magazine Distinguished Service Award recipient presented at Food

Safety World Conference

2008 Meat Processing Award from the American Meat Science Association. Presented at

the annual Reciprocal Meats Conference.

2009 Scientific Achievement Award American Meat Institute Foundation

2013 Certificate of Distinction, the highest award given by the Ag Alumni of Purdue

University


102

Publications:

“AMIF Listeria Control Manual”

Contributor to publication MMT December 2003

Butts, Ph.D., John. “Seek & Destroy: Identifying and Controlling Listeria

monocytogenes Growth Niches.” Food Safety Magazine April/May 2003, Vol.

9, No. 2:24

Cover Story National Provisioner Apr 2010“Science + Culture = Safety”

Employee Hygiene “Success in Simplicity” National Provisioner Jan 2011.

“The Journey to a State of Control” Food Safety Magazine Mar 2011

A Team Approach for Management of the Elements of a Listeria Intervention

and Control Program, Food and Analytical Bacteriology Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2012

“Building Trust via food-safety management” National Provisioner Apr 2013.

Interviews:

“From Lab to Plant Floor,” Meat Processing Magazine January 2004.

“Machines on the Move,” Meat Processing Magazine December 2003.

“Breaking Ground in Sanitary Facility Design” Food Safety Magazine June 2005

Panels:


103

Rapid Detection Technologies, Measurement of Pathogens in Food and Water,

Washington, DC – University of Maryland. (2004)

Food Safety Summit 2005 Facility Design

Presentations:

“The Development and Production of Shelf Stable Entrees” a People-to-

People Meat Processing Technical Exchange and Trade Mission to Germany,

Hungary, Russia, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. - 1989

“Methods to Control Listeria in RTE Environments” ,Armour-Swift-Eckrich

Pathogen Control Workshop–1999

“Construction Process Control “,Conagra Pathogen Control Workshops - 2000

& 2003

“Microbiological Data Collection and Analysis”,Silliker Pathogen Control

Workshop San Antonio – 2001

“Data Collection and Trend Monitoring in Problem Prevention”,IFT Annual

Meeting – Chicago - 2003,

“Identifying and Controlling Listeria monocytogenes Growth Niches”,Food

Safety Summit, Washington DC - 2003

“Preventative Food Safety Designs & Practices”, Food Safety Summit,

Washington DC - 2004


104

“Sanitary Equipment Design & Maintenance”, Ecolab Maintenance and

Engineering Sanitary Practices Workshop. St. Paul, Minnesota – 2004, 2005,

2006

“Sanitation Process Control”, Kraft-Oscar Mayer Plant Managers Food Safety

Annual Meeting, Davenport, Iowa - 2004

“The Prevention and Control of Environmental Pathogens in Food Processing

Environments”

Refrigerated Foods Association - RFA Technical Web Conference – July 2004

“The Use of Predictive Sampling as a Tool for Sanitation Process Control:”

Kraft-Oscar Mayer Food Safety Annual Meeting 2005, Glenview IL

“Facility Design Case Study”

Food Safety Summit 2005, Washington, DC

Food Equipment Manufactures Association 2005, Oakbrook, IL

Pack Expo 2005, Las Vegas, NV

Food Safety World Conference and Expo – 2006, Washington, DC

“FSIS Food Safety Assessment – Risk Verification Testing”, Kraft-Oscar Mayer

Food Safety Annual Meeting 2006, Glenview IL

“Lessons Learned” from Years of Meat Plant Environmental Pathogen Control

Efforts


105

FMI Food Safety Workgroup, Joint AMI-FMI Meeting March 2006,

Washington, DC

“A Case Study on Time and Temperature Controls”, Food Safety World

Conference and Expo – 2006, Washington, DC

“Listeria Intervention and Control”, 3M Sales Meeting – 12/05, San Diego, CA

“Case Study on Condensation Control”, World Wide Food Exposition - AMI –

Oct 2005, Chicago, IL

“Critical Factors for Process Control in Ready-to-Eat Manufacturing”

Reciprocal Meats Conference American Meat Science Association Annual

Meeting. Univ Illinois June 2006.

“Application of Principles to Facility Design” World Wide Food Exposition -

AMI –Oct 2007 Chicago, IL

Numerous presentations on Sanitary Control Procedures in Retail Deli

Operations – Affiliated Foods 2006 & 2007

“Strategies for Controlling Listeria” Twenty-Seventh University of Wisconsin

- River Falls Food Microbiology Symposium and Workshop October 21-24,

2007

Keynote Speaker “Control of Listeria monocytogenes in a Seafood Processing

Environment” Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Irish Sea Fisheries Board. Nov. 2007,

Dublin Ireland


106

“Lessons Learned in the Meat Industry:Control of Listeria in RTE Meat and

Poultry Products” Canadian Meat Council, Toronto, Canada September 9,

2008

“The Integration of Sanitation and Sanitary Design”. Weber National Sales

Meeting Jan 2009

AMI Board Members - Pork and Processes Meats Committee

Listeria Control Self Assessment - Fall 2008

Listeria Benchmarking – Spring 2009

AMI Details Industry Advancements in Listeria Control at FSIS Public Hearing

on Retail Risk Assessment. Washington DC June 2009

“Improving Sanitary Design” IAFP Workshop July 2009

Food Industry Microbiology Round Table “A Process Control System for

Listeria in RTE Meat Plants” Glenview IL Oct 2009

Canadian Meat Council “Sanitary Design” October 2009, Toronto, Canada

IAFP Webinar “Challenges with Wet Cleaning” May 2010

University of Wisc. “Developing A Food Safety System” FRI and UW Meat

Science Food Safety and Meat Microbiology School. Madison Wisc Aug 2010.

NSW Food Authority Auditors “Data Analysis, Investigation and Corrective

Action” Sydney Australia July 2010


107

Keynote Speaker NSW Food Authority Conference “Listeria Intervention and

Control” Sydney Australia July 2010

IAFP. “Seek and Destroy Team Approach to Listeria Intervention and Control”

Arkansas Chapter Sept 2010, Nebraska Chapter Oct 2010,

“Food Safety War Stories - A Perspective on Continuous Improvement and

the Development of a Proactive Food Safety Culture”. Maple Leaf Foods Food

Safety Symposium. Toronto Canada May 2011.

“Investigation Intervention & Control”, Saputo Foods Annual Food Safety

Workshop Green Bay WI June 2011

“Data Driven Construction and Sanitation Process Control” Refrigerated

Foods Association Annual Convention Palm Springs Ca Mar 2012

Principles of Hygienic Design and Application, Midwest Food Processors

Association, MWFPA Sanitary Design Seminar, La Crosse, WI – Apr. 2012

The Evolution of Foreign Material Control and Prevention. Webinar for

Maple Leaf Foods FSQ Leader Summit Feb 2013.

Developed and presents four ongoing presentations for the AMI Listeria Intervention &

Control Workshops: Construction Process Control, Data Analysis, Investigation and Corrective

Action, and Sanitary Equipment & Facility Design

These presentations have been given at:


108

Workshops (Nov 2000 – present)have been presented to industry at 25+ different

locations/events throughout the US, to FSIS staff at the Omaha Technical Center and

Washington, D.C., NAMP National Conference Chicago, 2007, Lm workshop and case studies

FDA Policy Group Univ Maryland – Mar 2009, and Lm workshop and case studies FSIS Policy

Group Washington DC – July 2009.

Martha Gonzarlez, Director Global Quality Systems, McCain Foods Limited

Food Engineer; Quality and Food Safety professional, with a proven record of

accomplishment in leadership, coaching and service in the food industry; driven continuous

improvement in the entire supply chain through effective corporate deployment of a quality

assurance and food safety strategic plan.

Introduction

USA resident, Citizen from Bogota- Colombia (South America), where has received a

professional degree as Food Engineer; attended a post grad program in International Business

Management, and executive programs such as project management, business administration, and

integral management. Even though the preferred area has been associated with strategic

leadership, has evolved within the functional process of Total Quality, and Quality Assurance for

the Food industry (ISO 9000, GMP’s, Prerequisites for Food Safety, HACCP).

Core Competencies


109

With experience at Country, Regional, and Corporate level: Mentoring and Coaching *

Interpersonal Skills * Strategic Management based on Total Quality approach * Multicultural

Leadership * Personnel Management * Crisis Management * Project Management * Negotiation

* Budget Management * Quality Assurance and Quality Control * Customer technical support *

Supplier Quality Management * International Regulatory Compliance.

Professional Experience

Director Global Quality Systems Oct 2010 - Current

McCain Foods Limited – Global Quality Office, Lisle- IL USA

This is a corporate (global) role. Accountable for planning, and directing the

implementation of the quality and food safety policy, corporate programs and initiatives

regarding quality assurance and food safety management system (FSQMS). Oversees all aspects

of the organization’s FSQMS improvement efforts, develop; promoting education, cultural

change, its implementation, and verification. Coordinate global work streams to establish and

execute strategic plans, policies, and procedures at all levels so the quality system meets

regulatory, internal and external customers’ needs and expectations.

Experience and knowledge in regards to following standards: GFSI benchmarked

schemes- BRC, SQF2000, and FSSC22000- ; GMP's - AIB International; Customer audits.

Others: Global Quality Metrics. Support to the Americas for the interpretation of

LATAM regulations.


110

Member of:

- AIB International, Food Safety Advisory Committee;

- ASQ, ASSOCIATE Member.

- GMA Latin America Working Group;

- Center of Excellence Kestrel Management.

Holly Mockus, Product Manager, Alchemy Systems

With more than 30 years of experience in the food industry, Holly Mockus has had the

privilege of working with many exceptional professionals and organizations throughout her

career and is thrilled to a Product Manager with Alchemy Systems. Her industry experience

includes food safety, quality, food defense, pest control, sanitation and plant regulatory affairs

with a variety of food products — from flavors to meat and poultry to snack and bakery items to

frozen meals. She is actively involved in industry activities including GFSI working groups and

NSF Certificate Program Advisory Committee, and very much enjoys working with people.

After all, teamwork makes it all happen! Holly graduated from Southern Illinois University

with a bachelor’s degree in microbiology.


111


112

Dr. W. Payton Pruett, Jr., Vice President of Corporate Food Technology aand

Regulatory Compliance, The Kroger Co.

Dr. W. Payton Pruett is Vice President of Corporate Food Technology and Regulatory

Compliance for The Kroger Co. Payton joined Kroger in 2005 from ConAgra Foods in Omaha

where he served as Senior Director of Food Safety and Laboratory Services. During his career,

Payton also managed food safety, quality, and laboratory services at ConAgra Refrigerated

Foods and Silliker Laboratories.

Payton earned his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Food Science and Technology from

Virginia Tech. He received his B.S. in Microbiology and minor in Chemistry from East

Tennessee State University.

Payton has written and presented extensively on the microbiological safety and quality of

foods. He has served on a number of scientific committees and has been a member of several

professional organizations including the International Association for Food Protection, the

Institute of Food Technologists, and the American Society of Microbiology. From 1997-2002,

Payton was certified as a Specialist Microbiologist through the National Registry of

Microbiology and was an editor for the Journal of Food Protection from 2004-2009. Payton is

currently a food science adjunct professor at Purdue University, a member of the Global Food

Safety Initiative (GFSI) Foundation board of directors, and serves on the Virginia Tech food

science department advisory board. He is a Certified Professional - Food Safety (CP-FS)

through the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA).


113

Sara Mortimore, VP, Product Safety, Quality & Regulatory Affairs, Land O’Lakes,

Inc.

Sara Mortimore, Msc, FRSPH, MIFST, is a Food Scientist with around 30 years of

practical experience. She started her career with Glaxo SmithKline, working as a Research

Technologist and then moved to a division of Croda International where she again worked in

R&D before transitioning into Quality Assurance. In 1989 she joined Grand Metropolitan Foods

which later became Pillsbury and subsequently was incorporated by General Mills Inc. She

stayed there for close on 19 years moving through a series of global assignments all in Food

Safety and Quality. Sara joined Land O’Lakes in 2008 and is currently Vice President of Product

Safety, Quality and Regulatory Affairs with enterprise wide responsibility.

Publications include,

"HACCP: A Practical Approach", Sara Mortimore and Carol Wallace, (3rd

Edition 2013), Springer (New York)),

“Food Safety for the 21st Century”, C. A. Wallace, W.H. Sperber, S.E. Mortimore

(2011), Wiley-Blackwell (Oxford, UK).

"Food Industry Briefing Series: HACCP", Sara Mortimore and Carol Wallace,

(2001), Blackwell Science Ltd. (Oxford, UK) (2nd edition scheduled 2014)


114

“Making the Most of HACCP”, Mayes, A. and Mortimore, S.E. (2001),

Woodhead Publishing, (Cambridge, UK)

John Weisgerber, VP Quality and Food Safety, Ed Miniat, LLC

John Weisgerber graduated from Purdue University in 1970 with a B.S. in Biology. He

spent over 33 years working in various aspects of quality, food safety and regulatory systems

management with Oscar Mayer/Kraft Foods. During his career he worked at five Oscar Mayer/

Louis Rich manufacturing facilities across the US. In addition, John continues to be an instructor

for the AMIF Listeria Intervention & Control Workshop, has co-authored an AMIF White Paper

on Airborne Listeria, has volunteered through the United Nations to provide food processing

expertise to the government of Lesotho and was a contributor to the AMIF Listeria Control

Manual published in December 2003.

John retired from Kraft in May 2004 as Director of Quality for the Oscar Mayer, Louis

Rich and Kraft Pizza brands. Since then, he has formed Weisgerber Consulting, LLC to provide

quality and food safety system support to the food processing industry. He has presented Process

Control and Quality System seminars at the Alkar Processing Validation Seminar in May 2005

and the Food Safety World Conference and Expo in March 2006. Additionally he has published

an article in the April/ May 2006 issue of Food Safety Magazine titled “Automating Process

Controls with a Supply Chain View” and has been a speaker in the Listeria Control workshop at

the 2009 IAFP annual meeting as well as the keynote speaker at the 2009 Canadian Meat

Council Advanced Listeria Control Symposium. He is also a member of the Maple Leaf Foods


115

Co. Food Safety Advisory Council and is the leader of the Ed Miniat, LLC Food Safety Advisory

Council.

In May 2011 John put his consulting business on hold and accepted the position of VP

Quality and Food Safety working for Ed Miniat, LLC, a processed meat manufacturer in South

Holland, IL. In 2013 he was promoted to the position of VP Quality and Food Safety


116

Appendix D: Pinpointed behaviours

Table D-1: Pinpointed behaviours by function (food safety and quality), role and competency areas in the maturity stages of doubt.

Capability area Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader (Strategy) Executive (Vision)

People System I immediately remove food safety

issues by myself to avoid negative

consequences for myself and my

team (MOTIVATION)

I always have to learn how to

solve food safety problems as they

happen (COMPETENCE)

I always ask others before taking

action to solve a food safety

I provide my direct reports with

direction to remove food safety

problems immediately to avoid


(MOTIVATION)

I plan improvements of my

own or my teams knowledge,

skills or ability in food safety as

needs arise (COMPETENCE)

I always have to manage

negative consequences when a

food safety problem occur

(MOVTIVATION)

I check if my teams have the

needed food safety knowledge,

skills or ability on an ad-hoc

basis (COMPETENCE)

I direct leaders to always ask

I make sure somebody is

managing negative

consequences every time a food

safety problem occur

(MOTIVATION)

I seldom get involved in

discussions regarding food

safety knowledge, skills or

ability needs (COMPETENCE)

I hold leaders accountable for


117

problem (OPPORTUNITY) I always direct my team(s) not

to take action to solve a food

safety problems without asking

others (OPPERTUNITY)

somebody before solving a food

safety problem

(OPPERTUNITY)

consulting wiht FSQ experts

before taking action on food

safety (OPPERTUNITY)

Perceived

Value

I take action on food safety only

when regulatory or customer

compliance is at risk

(DIRECTION)

I collect minimum weekly food

safety data for filing purpose only

I only take action on food safety

if regulatory or customer


(DIRECTION)

I do not review food safety data

outside the monthly action

meeting

I only engage in food safety

issues if regulatory or customer


(DIRECTION)

I more often base my food safety

decisions on discussions than

plant data

I do not engage in food safety

issues unless regulatory or

customer compliance is at risk

(DIRECTION)

I more often base my food safety

decisions on discussion than

data


118

Process

Thinking

I rarely have time to identify root

cause of problems and mostly find

myself fire fighting

I often have to solve many food

safety problems at the same

time

I support my team and others in

identifying root causes for food

safety problems very rarely due

to figherfighting

I minimum weekly ask for new

issues to be solved by a plant

team

I circle back after corrective

actions have been implemented

to learn about the root-cause(s)

when I can find the time

I circle back with responsible

leaders to ensure specific

corrective actions have been

implemented effectively when I

have time

Technology

Enablement

(Technology =

IS tools)

I always design my own tools e.g.

spreadsheets and forms to gather

food safety data

I rarely discuss or set direction

for the tools used by my team to

gather food safety data

I always look to IS to set

direction for tools used to gather

food safety data

I do not get involved in what

systems are used to gather food

safety data

Tools and

Infrastructure

I often have to improvise because

I or my team do not have the right

tools to perform a food safety task

I always reward improvisation

for solving a task if the right

tools are not available

I personally review every plants

food safety spend minimum

monthly

I encourage and reward direct

reports on-going for minimizing

food safety spend


119

Table D-2: Pinpointed behaviours by function (food safety and quality), role and competency areas in the maturity stages of internalized

Capability

Area

Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader

(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

People System I take action daily to let

anybody know when they

go over and beyond for

food safety

(MOVTIVATION)

I only act as coach

whenever the plant teams

solve food safety issues

(COMPETENCE)


provide positive feedback

when others take action to

remove perceive food

safety risks

(MOTIVATION)

I take daily action to

congratulate plant teams

when they solve food


complement my peers in

other functions of their

demonstrated food safety

ownership

(MOTIVATION)

I minimum weekly openly

congratulates a plant

manager on his/her good

I minimum monthly check

in with functional - and

business leaders to ensure

food safety is built into

their business plans

(MOTIVATION)

I systemically and openly

celebrate individual leaders



120

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

I always correct food

safety behaviours

immediately when I see an

opportunity

(OPPERTUNITY)

safety problems with

minimal involvement

from FSQ

(COMPETENCE)

I minimum weekly check

in with my supervisor(s)

or others to ensure they

have the necessary

authority to make business

decisions for food safety

business decision(s) made

for food safety

(COMPETENCE)

I check in with teams or

peers minimum weekly to

ensure they have the


decision for food safety

(OPPERTUNITY)

competency and leadership

(COMPETENCE)

I systemically, once a

quarter, review summary of


celebration or correction

(OPPERTUNITY)


121

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

(OPPERTUNITY)


122

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

Perceived

Value

I work daily to improve

food safety processes e.g.

take out unnecessary steps,

reduce lead-time, reduce

resource needs

(DIRECTION)

I only participate in food

safety problem solving

and follow up when asked

by manufacturing

I minimum weekly direct

plant teams to improve

food safety processes

(DIRECTION)

I answer ad-hoc questions

from manufacturing

regarding food safety and

only get involved when

they ask

I take action weekly to

reward food safety


results at plants, BU or HO

(DIRECTION)

I discuss and action longer

term preventive action

planning with

manufacturing leaders

weekly

I systemically take action

to review and comment on


results across the plant

network (DIRECTION)

I take action to ensuring

effectivness of preventive

plans through a pre-set

meeting rhythm with

functional -and business


123

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

leaders

Process

Thinking

6. I collect, analyze

and report food safety data

daily to plant staff to bring

transparency on lurking

challenges

6. I analyze data

for food safety trends

weekly and provide

summary to plant -and BU

leaders

6. I analyze data for

food safety trends monthly

and provide summary for

senior leaders

7. I review the plants

6. I review the

plants preventive plans for

effectiveness and act on

recommendation from

leaders once a quarter


124

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

7. I review plants

preventive plans for

effectiveness weekly


effectiveness monthly

7. I provide direction,

minimum quarterly, on the

criticallity of data integrity

to business performance

Technology

Enablement

(Technology =

IS tools)

I enter and report food

safety performance daily

in one place only

I review food safety data

in the company-wide IS

system (e.g. SAP) weekly

I take action monthly to

ensure everybody on my

team understands the

importance of data usage -

and integrity in the

company-wide IS system

I enforce in regular

communication the

importance of using the


for food safety data

collection -and reporting


125

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

Tools and

Infrastructure

I use tools and technology

daily to identify and

reinforce the right food

safety behaviours in others

I soliciting barriers to use

of tool and technology and

bring these to my

functional leader monthly

I build plan with plants for

their longer term tools and

technology needs and bring

these to approval with

executives once a quarter

I encourage leaders to

gather tools and technology

needs on-going to enable

development and execution

of a standardized, longer-

term roadmap


126

Table D-4: Pinpointed behaviours by function (manufacturing), role and competency areas in the maturity stages of doubt

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

People System I immediately remove food

safety issues by myself to

avoid negative

consequences for myself

and my team.

(MOTIVATION)

I always have to learn how

to solve food safety

problems as they happen

I provide my direct reports

with direction to remove

food safety problems

immediately to avoid


(MOTIVATION)

I always have to take time

figuring out how to handle

a food safety problem after

I always have to manage


when a food safety

problem occur

(MOVTIVATION)

I check if my teams have

the needed food safety

knowledge, skills or ability

on an ad-hoc basis

I make sure somebody is

managing negative

consequences every time a

food safety problem occur

(MOTIVATION)

I seldom get involved in

discussions regarding food

safety knowledge, skills or

ability needs


127

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

(COMPETENCE)

I always ask others before

taking action to solve a

food safety problem

(OPPORTUNITY)

it has happened

(COMPETENCE)

I always direct my team(s)

not to take action to solve

a food safety problems

without asking others

(OPPORTUNITY)

(COMPETENCE)

I direct my direct reports

and others to always ask

myself or others before

solving a food safety

problem

(OPPORTUNITY)

(COMPETENCE)

I hold leaders accountable

for consulting wiht FSQ

experts before taking

action on food safety

(OPPORTUNITY)


128

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

Perceived

Value

I take action on food safety

only when regulatory or

customer compliance is at

risk (DIRECTION)

I collect food safety data

minimum weekly for others

to action

I only take action on food

safety if regulatory or

customer compliance is at

risk (DIRECTION)

5. I do not analyze food

safety data outside the

monthly action meeting

I only engage in food

safety issues if regulatory

or customer compliance is

at risk (DIRECTION)

I more often base my food

safety decisions on

discussions than plant data

I do not engage in food

safety issues unless

regulatory or customer


(DIRECTION)

I more often base my food

safety decisions on

discussion than data


129

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

Process

Thinking

I mostly figherfight when

solving food safety

problems since there is so

much to do

I often have to solve many

food safety problems at

the same time

I support my team and

others in identifying root

causes for food safety

problems very rarely due

to figherfighting

I minimum weekly ask for

new food safety issue(s) to

be solved by a plant team

I circle back after

corrective actions have

been implemented to learn

about the root-cause(s)

when I have time

I circle back with

responsible leaders to

ensure specific corrective

actions have been

implemented effectively

when I have time


130

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

Technology

Enablement

(Technology =

IS tools)

I do not analyze food safety

data FSQ takes care of that

I encourage my team(s)

and others to get food

safety data analyzed by

FSQ

I do not get involved in

how food safety data is

collected and leave that to

my peers in FSQ

I do not get involved in

what systems are used to

gather food safety data

Tools and

Infrastructure

I often have to improvise

because I or my team do not

have the right tools to

perform a food safety task

I always reward

improvising when solving

a food safety task to keep

production running


minimize food safety spend

I encourage and reward

direct reports on-going for

minimizing food safety

spend

Table D-2: Pinpointed behaviours by function (manufacturing), role and competency areas in the maturity stages of internalized


131

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

People System I take action daily to let

anybody know when they

go over and beyond for

food safety

(MOVTIVATION)

2. I always solve for food

safety problems with my

team and only involve

FSQ in a coaching

capacity


provide positive feedback

when others take action to

remove perceive food

safety risks

(MOTIVATION)


congratulate plant teams

when they solve food

safety problems with


complement my peers in

other functions for their

food safety actions

(MOTIVATION)

I minimum weekly

congratulate a plant

manager for his/her good

business decision(s) in

support of food safety

I minimum monthly check

in with functional - and

business leaders to ensure

food safety is built into

their business plans

(MOTIVATION)

I systemically and openly

celebrate individual leaders


competency and leadership


132

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

(COMPETENCE)

I correct food safety

behaviours on the spot

every single time I see an

opportunity

(OPPORTUNITY)

minimal involvement

from FSQ

(COMPETENCE)

I minimum weekly check

in with my supervisor(s)

or others to ensure they

have the neccessary


decisions for food safety

(OPPORTUNITY)

(COMPETENCE)

I check in with my team

and others, minimum

weekly, to ensure they

have the authority to make

business decision for food

safety (OPPORTUNITY)

(COMPETENCE)

I systemically, once a

quarter, review summary of


celebration or correction

(OPPORTUNITY)


133

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

Perceived

Value

I work daily to improve

food safety processes e.g.

take out unnecessary

steps, reduce resource

needs, increase

consistency between runs

(DIRECTION)

I rarely involve FSQ in

food safety problems

unless I need coaching

I minimum weekly direct

plant teams or others to

improve food safety

processes (DIRECTION)

I mostly solve food safety

problems within my team

and bring in FSQ for

coaching if needed


openly reward food safety


results at plants

(DIRECTION)

I discuss and execute

longer term preventive

actions with FSQ weekly

I systemically take action

to review and comment on


results across the plant

network (DIRECTION)

I take action to ensuring

effectiveness of preventive

plans through a pre-set

meeting rhythm with

functional -and business


134

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

leaders

Process

Thinking

I solve for lurking food

safety challenges

immediately based on data

collected during prodution

I receive weekly summary

of food safety trends from

FSQ and take action

immediately within my

team

I discuss food safety

trends, derived from

aggregated plant data,

monthly with my FSQ

peers

I review the plants


effectiveness and act on

recommendation from

leaders once a quarter


135

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

I review food safety

preventive plans for my

area weekly to make sure

they work and look for

improvement

opportunities

I review food safety


effectiveness monthly

I provide direction,

minimum quarterly, on the

criticality of data integrity

to business performance

Technology

Enablement

(Technology =

IS tools)

I enter and report food

safety performance daily

through the company-wide

IS system only and

nowhere else

I discuss food safety

information, pulled only

from the company-wide IS

system, weekly with plant

teams

I take action monthly to

ensure everybody on my

team understands the

importance of data usage -

and integrity in the

I enforce in regular

communication the

importance of using the


for food safety data


136

Capability

Area


(Strategy)

Executive (Vision)

company-wide IS system collection -and reporting

Tools and

Infrastructure

I use tools and technology

daily to identify and

reinforce the right food

safety behaviours in others

I reinforce use of food

safety tools and

technology, solicit barriers

to their use and bring

these to my functional

leader weekly

I gather longer term tools

and technology needs from

plants and bring these to

approval with executives

once a quarter

I encourage leaders to

gather tools and technology

needs on-going to enable

development and execution

of a standardized, longer-

term roadmap


137


138

Appendix E: Behaviour-based Maturity Scale

Scale questions.

Table E-1: Scale questions and rating

Question/Statement Rating

My behaviour to only participate in food safety problem solving and follow up when asked by manufacturing is …

1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful

People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me always correcting food safety behaviours immediately when I see an opportunity

1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree

In the past three months I always corrected food safety behaviours immediately when I saw an opportunity

1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never

I am certain that for the next three months I will always correct food safety behaviours immediately when I see an opportunity

1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely

I am certain that for the next three months I will collect, analyze and report food safety data daily to plant staff to bring transparency on emerging issues


My behaviour to collect, analyze and report food safety data daily to plant staff to bring transparency on emerging issues is …



139


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me taking action on food safety only when regulatory or customer compliance is at risk


When it comes to matters of food safety how much do you want to be like your manager?

1 Very Important 2 Important 3 Neither Important or Unimportant 4 Unimportant 5 Very Unimportant

My behaviour to always having to learn how to solve food safety issues as they happen is …


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me rarely having time to identify root cause of problems and mostly find myself fire fighting


I intend to often have to improvise because I or my team do not have the right tools to perform a food safety task


I intend to immediately remove food safety issues to avoid negative consequences for myself and my team


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me using tools and technology daily to identify and reinforce the right food safety behaviours



140


I intend to take action daily to let anybody know when they go above and beyond for food safety


In the past three months I always had to learn how to solve food safety issues as they happened


I intend to rarely have time to identify root cause of problems and mostly find myself fire fighting


In the past three months I always designed my own tools e.g. spreadsheets and forms, to gather food safety data


In the past three months I collected minimum weekly food safety data for filing purpose only


I intend to always ask others before taking action to solve a food safety problem


I intend to always have to learn how to solve food safety issues as they happen


I am certain that for the next three months I will often have to improvise because I or my team do not have the right tools to perform a food safety task



141


In the past three months I took action daily to let anybody know when they went above and beyond for food safety


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me only participating in food safety problem solving and follow up when asked by manufacturing


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me entering and reporting food safety performance daily in one place only


In the past three months I only acted as coach whenever the plant teams solved food safety issues


I intend to use tools and technology daily to identify and reinforce the right food safety behaviours


I am certain that for the next three months I will take action daily to let anybody know when they go above and beyond for food safety


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me always having to learn how to solve food safety issues as they happen


I am certain that for the next three months I will take action on food safety only when regulatory or customer compliance is at risk



142


What type of feedback is typically provided to teams around food safety behaviours?

When it comes to food safety I am most influenced by what my manager thinks I should do


I intend to only participate in food safety problem solving and follow up when asked by manufacturing


I am certain that for the next three months I will always design my own tools e.g. spreadsheets and forms, to gather food safety data


I intend to collect minimum weekly food safety data for filing purpose only


In the past three months I only participated in food safety problem solving and follow up when asked by manufacturing


I am certain that for the next three months I will only act as coach whenever the plant teams solve food safety issues


I intend to always correct food safety behaviours immediately when I see an opportunity



143


My behaviour to rarely having time to identify root cause of problems and mostly find myself firefighting is …


My behaviour to immediately remove food safety issues to avoid negative consequences for myself and my team is …


My behaviour to use tools and technology daily to identify and reinforce the right food safety behaviours is …


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me collecting minimum weekly food safety data for filing purpose only


When it comes to food safety I am most influenced by what I have learn through food safety training


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me taking action daily to let anybody know when they go above and beyond for food safety


I intend to always design my own tools e.g. spreadsheets and forms, to gather food safety data



144


I am certain that for the next three months I will always ask others before taking action to solve a food safety problem


In the past three months I collected, analyzed and reported food safety data daily to plant staff to bring transparency on emerging issues


I am certain that for the next three months I will always have to learn how to solve food safety issues as they happen


When it comes to food safety I am most influenced by what my working peers think I should do


In the past three months I always asked others before taking action to solve a food safety problem


In the past three months I worked daily to improve food safety processes e.g. took out unnecessary steps, reduced lead-time, reduced resource needs


I am certain that for the next three months I will use tools and technology daily to identify and reinforce the right food safety behaviours


In the past three months I entered and reported food safety performance daily in one place only



145


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me always designing my own tools e.g. spreadsheets and forms, to gather food safety data


I am certain that for the next three months I will enter and report food safety performance daily in one place only


I am certain that for the next three months I will collect minimum weekly food safety data for filing purpose only


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me always asking others before taking action to solve a food safety problem


In the past three months I took action on food safety only when regulatory or customer compliance was at risk


My behaviour to enter and report food safety performance daily in one place only is …


In the past three months I used tools and technology daily to identify and reinforce the right food safety behaviours


I intend to only act as coach whenever the plant teams solve food safety issues



146


I intend to enter and report food safety performance daily in one place only


In the past three months I often had to improvise because I or my team did not have the right tools to perform a food safety task


My behaviour too often having to improvise because I or my team do not have the right tools to perform a food safety task is …


My behaviour to only act as coach whenever the plant teams solve food safety issues is …


In the past three months I immediately removed food safety issues to avoid negative consequences for myself and my team


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me immediately removing food safety issues to avoid negative consequences for myself and my team


I intend to collect, analyze and report food safety data daily to plant staff to bring transparency on emerging issues


I am certain that for the next three months I will work daily to improve food safety processes e.g. take out unnecessary steps, reduce lead-time, reduce resource needs



147


I am certain that for the next three months I will rarely have time to identify root cause of problems and mostly find myself fire fighting


When it comes to matters of food safety how much do you want to be like your working peers?


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me only acting as coach whenever the plant teams solve food safety issues


My behaviour to take action daily to let anybody know when they go above and beyond for food safety is …


My behaviour to always correct food safety behaviours immediately when I see an opportunity is …


I am certain that for the next three months I will only participate in food safety problem solving and follow up when asked by manufacturing


My behaviour to collect minimum weekly food safety data for filing purpose only is …


My behaviour to take action on food safety only when regulatory or customer compliance is at risk is …


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me collecting, analyzing and reporting food safety data daily to plant staff to bring transparency on emerging issues

1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided


148


4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree

In the past three months I rarely had time to identify root cause of problems and mostly found myself fire fighting


I intend to take action on food safety only when regulatory or customer compliance is at risk


My behaviour to always ask others before taking action to solve a food safety problem is …


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me working daily to improve food safety processes e.g. taking out unnecessary steps, reducing lead-time, reducing resource needs


When it comes to food safety I am most influenced by what my family/friends outside work think I should do


My behaviour to work daily to improve food safety processes e.g. take out unnecessary steps, reduce lead-time, reduce resource needs is …


People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me often having to improvise because I or my team do not having the right tools to perform a food safety task



149


I intend to work daily to improve food safety processes e.g. take out unnecessary steps, reduce lead-time, reduce resource needs


I am certain that for the next three months I will immediately remove food safety issues to avoid negative consequences for myself and my team


My behaviour to always design my own tools e.g. spreadsheets and forms, to gather food safety data is …



150

Appendix F: Plant Maturity Models

Table F-1: Mean maturity score by plant by capability area

Capability

area

Doubt Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Plant 6 Plant 7 Plant 8

Perceived

value

Doubt 3.00 3.20 2.30 3.20 2.80 3.00 3.70 2.30

Perceived

value

Internalized 2.80 2.60 2.90 2.80 3.00 3.50 2.80 3.40

People

systems

Doubt 2.80 2.00 2.50 2.00 1.70 2.60 2.60 2.60

People

systems

Internalized 3.20 2.70 2.70 3.10 2.50 2.80 2.70 3.00

Process

thinking

Doubt 2.50 2.70 2.60 2.40 2.90 3.20 3.30 3.00

Process

thinking

Internalized 3.10 2.50 3.20 2.40 2.10 2.70 2.70 2.60

Technology Doubt 3.00 2.90 2.30 3.50 2.60 2.40 3.50 2.50


151

Capability

area

Doubt Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Plant 6 Plant 7 Plant 8

enabler

Technology

enabler

Internalized 2.30 1.80 2.20 1.70 1.00 2.50 2.30 2.30

Tools &

Infrastructure

Doubt 2.90 3.80 2.80 3.40 2.40 3.00 3.40 2.60

Tools &

Infrastructure

Internalized 3.30 2.80 3.10 2.60 3.00 3.40 2.90 2.40

Average 2.89 2.70 2.66 2.71 2.40 2.91 2.99 2.67

Max 3.30 3.80 3.20 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.70 3.40

Min 2.30 1.80 2.20 1.70 1.00 2.40 2.30 2.30

Plant 1.


152

Capability Area

(Identifier)0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Perceived Value l l

People System l l

Process Thinking l l

Technology

Enabler l l

Tools &

Infrastructure l l

Plant 1

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

The food safety maturity at plant 1 was calculated by competency areas (n=290). The

range of the mean scores was calculated based on scores in the maturity stage doubt and maturity

stage internalized. The black dots (l) indicate mean maturity score for each maturity level. The

results are centered on maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3 know of. The highest

maturity score is found in the tools and infrastructure capability area closely followed by people

systems and perceived value. The largest range between the mean scores are seen in the

capability areas process thinking and technology enabler (Table F-2).

Table F-1: Plant 1 Food Safety Model


153

Capability Area

(Identifier)0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Perceived Value l l

People System l l


Technology

Enabler l l

Tools &

Infrastructure l l

Stage 5Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Plant 2

Plant 2.





maturity score is found in tools and infrastructure capability area followed by perceived value.

People systems, process thinking, and technology enabler tie for the lowest scores. The largest

range between the mean scores is seen in the capability areas technology enabler and tools and

infrastructure (Table F-3).

Table F-3: Plant 2 Food Safety Model


154

Plant 3.





maturity score is found in the process thinking capability area closely followed by tools and

infrastructure. Perceived value and people systems follow and the lowest score is found in the

capability area technology enabled. The largest range between the mean scores is seen in the

capability areas perceived value and process thinking (Table F-4).

Table F-4: Plant 3 Food Safety Maturity Model

Capability Area

(Identifier)0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Perceived Value l l

People System l l


Technology

Enabler l l

Tools &

Infrastructure l l


Plant 3


155

Plant 4.





maturity score is found in the technology enabler area closely followed by tools and

infrastructure. Perceived value and people systems follow and the lowest score is associated with

the capability area process thinking. The largest range between the mean scores was seen in the

capability areas people systems and technology enabler (Table F-5).

Capability Area

(Identifier)0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Perceived Value l l

People System l l

Process Thinking l

Technology

Enabler l l

Tools &

Infrastructure l l

Plant 4




156

Plant 5.




results are centered on maturity stage 1 doubt, maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3

know of. The highest maturity score is found in the perceived value and tools and infrastructure

areas closely followed by process thinking. Technology enabler and process thinking follow with

the lowest scores. The largest range between the mean scores was seen in the capability area

technology enabler (Table F-6).

Capability Area

(Identifier)0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Perceived Value l l

People System l l


Technology

Enabler l l

Tools &

Infrastructure l l

Plant 5




157

Capability Area

(Identifier)0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Perceived Value l l

People System l l


Technology

Enabler l l

Tools &

Infrastructure l l

Plant 6


Plant 6.





maturity score is found in the perceived value capability area closely followed by tools and

infrastructure. Process thinking is next followed by people systems and lastly technology

enabled. The largest range between the mean scores was seen in the capability areas perceived

value and process thinking (Table F-7).



158

Plant 7.





maturity score is found in the perceived value area closely followed by technology enabler.

Tools and infrastructure and process thinking follow and the lowest score was associated with

the capability area people systems. The largest range between the mean scores was seen in the

capability areas perceived value and technology enabler (Table F-8).

Capability Area

(Identifier)0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Perceived Value l l

People System l


Technology

Enabler l l

Tools &

Infrastructure l l

Plant 7




159

Plant 8.





maturity score is found in the perceived value area closely followed by people systems and

process thinking. Technology enabler and tools and infrastructure follow with the lowest scores.

The largest range between the mean scores was seen in the capability area perceived value

(Table F-9).

Capability Area

(Identifier)0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Perceived Value l l

People System l l


Technology

Enabler l l

Tools &

Infrastructure l l

Plant 8




160

Appendix G: Glossary

Sector = food service, food manufacturing, retail.

Table 1C: Stages with descriptors

Stage Description

Stage 1: Doubt Who messed up?”, “Food safety – QA does that?”

Stage 2: React to “How much time will it take? I am very busy. We are good at

and reward good fighter fighting”

Stage 3: Know of “I know it is important but I can only fix one problem at a time”

Stage 4: Predict “Here we plan and execute with knowledge, data and patience”

Stage 5: Internalize “Food safety is integrated into sustaining and growing our

business”

Table 2C: Capability areas with descriptors

Capability Area Description

Perceived Value Regulatory must do vs. critical to business performance

People System Task based, lack of responsibility vs. behaviour based working


161

group accountability

Process Thinking Independent task vs. iterative process build on critical thinking

and data

Technology Enabler Turning data into information; manual and independent vs.

automatically and as part of BPM

Tools & Infrastructure Having to walk far to get to a sink vs. conveniently located

sinks

Table 3A: Technical Performance Metrics

Input

(Units)

Definition Calculations

HACCP deviation Codex Alimentarius Definition

“Deviation: Failure to meet a critical limit.”

Where monitoring detects loss of control of a

CCP then corrective actions should be taken.

In other words, a HACCP deviation in its

strictest sense can only originate from a CCP.

Count of HACCP

deviations


162

Input

(Units)

Definition Calculations

Food Safety Enhancement Program

(FSEP) Definition

"Deviation - A failure to meet required

critical limits for a critical control point, or a

failure to meet a standard identified in a

prerequisite program or a process control.”

(FSEP Manual, July 2010 version)

A HACCP deviation cannot result

from a customer complaint, CFIA actions, or

third party auditing. A HACCP deviation can

only result from internal findings.

Sanitation Performance

Table 3C: Sanitation performance definitions

Input (Units) Definition Calculations


163

Total Number and

Number of

Unacceptable

Visual Pre-Op

Inspections

Verification inspection is done after sanitation

clean down has taken place in order to

approve the area or equipment sanitized as

suitable for hand back to production. This

visual inspection and approval was recorded

on a check sheet to confirm that it had been

done. This is a measure of the acceptability

of those inspections.

((Total –

Unacceptable)/Total) x

100 = Per-cent

Acceptable Visual Pre-

Op Inspections

Total Number and

Number of

Unacceptable Pre-

Op Micro Tests

Includes only total plate count (TPC) tests

performed at plant level after sanitation and

before operations to verify that the equipment

or area has been cleaned to an acceptable

standard.

((Total –


100 = Per-cent

Acceptable Pre-Op Micro

Tests

Total Number and

Number of

Unacceptable ATP

Tests

This measure is applicable only to plants that

currently use ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate)

swabs. It is performed at plant level after

sanitation and before operations to verify the

equipment has been cleaned to an acceptable

standard.

((Total –


100 = Per-cent

Acceptable ATP Tests


164

Audit Performance

Table 3C: Audit definitions and calculations


Third Party Audit

Non-

Conformances

(NCs)

Audit conducted by a third-party auditor to

the British Retail Consortium (BRC)

standard.

Count of NCs

Internal Audit

NCs

A systematic, independent* and documented

process conducted by, or on behalf of, the

organization itself for management review

and other internal purposes for obtaining audit

evidence and evaluating it objectively to

determine the extent to which the audit

criteria are fulfilled. Only NCs arising from

this type of audit should be logged as internal

audit NCs.

*Note: “Independent” means someone

within their own area of accountability

Count of NCs


165

cannot complete the audit or own work.

Training Performance

Table 5A: Training performance definition


Training events Each SISTEM module delivered to an hourly

employee counts as a “training event”. The

standard is one training event per hourly

employee per period, tracked as a 12-month

rolling average.

(Number of training

events/number of

SISTEM licenses*) x 100

= per-cent SISTEM

utilization.


166

measuring food safety culture in food manufacturing

Documents